Only the Rocket M's have the antenna port on them, all of the others have built in antennas.... since Rocket M's are really to be used as AP's , could I ask what is the vlaue in trying to do what you are asking for ?
Why not just deploy the Radios with the antennas, that they are designed to work with ? What is there to be gained by using a 802.11n radio and then 'crippling' it by using some external settings for 'disabling' one of the antenna ports ? If it is interference you are worried about, let the 2x2 radio with Airmax on, take care off it it self. Faisal. On 5/20/2010 9:02 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: > With Ubiquiti and any 2x2mimo N gear, there are two antenna ports or > "chains". If mode 1-7 is selected only Chain 0 (antenna port1) is enabled. > If mode 8-14 is selected, the Chain1 (antenna port2) is enabled, and > dependant on how much noise Antenna2 heard, the radio would automatically > enable and disable antenna2 on the fly asrequired to optimize quality. > In this scenario, chain0 is one polarity and chain1 is the other polarity. > The negative part of this is that Chain0 will always be the antenna polarity > connected to that Chain0 antenna port. And by default Chain0's polarity will > always be the one that AT MINIMUM is enabled. > > I dont like that because flexibilty is lost. I prefer a method like Trango > or dual port 802.11a, where if only one port is desired, the antenna port to > use can be custom selected. > An example secnario would be... Chain0 was originally installed withVert > pol, and then a month later noise levels changed, and now only Horizonal pol > is clean. How would the Radio be changed to use the Horizontal pol antenna > only, without a truck role? > That flexibilty is invaluable. Its also good for documentation > standardization... For example, lets say by standard Horizontal pol is > always isntalled on Chain0. Would it be nice if the remote NOC tech could > always count on that, to ease knowing what Pol was used at sites? Wouldn;t > it be nice to just select "chain1 only" to enable that Verticle pol antenna > only, if there was a need to change pols after the fact? Or if documentation > was not accessible when installing a new link, to know what pol other radios > are on simply by which chain was enabled on the radio's software, to make it > easier to select the right non-interfering pol for the new link? Its also > helpful to isntall an AP link, and then after the fact have a noc tech > select which pol is most free to operate on. This enables a one man team > installer and tech force to isntall more quickly, and adapt later when it is > more convenient to do so, such as from the comfort of their desk. Or after > going to client side and doing a noise scan there to. Obviously Mimo is > about using both antennas, but in many case, the future will cause that no > longer to be viable as new deployments get made. > > So my questions are.... > > Can this be done with UbiquitiOS and MadWifi? (I recognize that the Web > interface does not allow it currently) Is there a way to change which > antenna port acts as Chain0 through software? Or a way to select which Chain > will act as the Primary port when mode 1-7 is selected? Does the 802.11N > MIMO standard allow for that? Is this functionality hard coded out of the > Atheros chipset? Or will the Atheros chip do it, if software is modified to > tell it to? Is chain1 the only one that can operate with the features to > auto enable and disable itself? > > I recognize there are some challenges where the CPE side will autoadjust to > the AP side. So the CPE does need to understand which Port to enable as > primary and optional secondary. > But it would be super advatnateous to be able to select which chain acted as > the primary. > > Anyone know? > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL& Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tom DeReggi"<wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net> > To: "WISPA General List"<wireless@wispa.org> > Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 6:32 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] National Broadband Plan effects on RuralILECsand > SmallTelecom Provider's > > > It sounds like a lot of good was taken and contributed to that meeting. > I'm glad you were there. > > What interests me most will be to fully learn what scenergies will be found > between our groups. > At the end of the day, when it come to government increasing regulation, the > sides become provider versus governbment. Under those circumstances, its > amazing how many issues we share in common with these other groups. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL& Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rick Harnish"<rharn...@wispa.org> > To: "'WISPA General List'"<wireless@wispa.org> > Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:25 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] National Broadband Plan effects on Rural ILECsand > SmallTelecom Provider's > > > Tom, > > The general perception is that mobile broadband providers will be the most > likely recipients of the Reverse Auction procedure. Voice is going mobile > and they obviously have a solid lobbying front. It would seem logical that > mobile providers could accept lower subsidies with lower overhead and still > produce respectable revenue. I am not totally familiar with all the USF > details but with landlines decreasing at a rapid rate it would seem logical > that this shift would go to the resulting technology that replaces > landlines. Of note, there will be only one USF subsidy recipient per NGU > after the reverse auction is complete. Therefore, only one company will be > subsidized in each geographical area. If that doesn't spell MONOPOLY, I > don't know what does. > > The Rural ILEC's do not expect good things to come from the USF rewrite. > Now those opinions presented may be biased. The presenters were Bob Gnapp > of NECA and Douglas Meredith from John Starulakis, Inc. (JSI). > > The group welcomed my comments and I saw lots of head shaking (up and down) > as I spoke. Although competitors, they understand the power of partnership, > at least they seemed to. I suppose they could have just been courteous. I > have reached out to Bob Gnapp from NECA today and he said: > > "Rick, > I think your proposal to see what our associations may be able to accomplish > together is a good one. I'll be in touch. > Bob" > > There is realistically recognition from the Rural ILECs that unlicensed > spectrum is competition, especially if they hold AWS or 700 MHz licenses. > One speaker acted as though all spectrum would be auctioned to raise money > to pay for the Broadband Stimulus and National Broadband Plan. That is one > very important reason we need to achieve higher member participation > throughout our industry. > > Respectfully, > Rick Harnish > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Tom DeReggi >> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:07 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] National Broadband Plan effects on Rural ILECs and >> SmallTelecom Provider's >> >> Rick, >> >> Good info.... >> >> How open was that group (rural ILECs) to WISPA in general? Did they >> agree or >> disagree that there were scenergies to work togeather? I would think >> that >> Rural ILECs would benefit heavilly from the NBP goals that favored >> subsidizing Rural ILECs. >> Basically instead of USF recipients gaining funds for Phone, they >> receive >> the same funds to build broadband. Why wouldn't they want that? A >> local >> non-ILEC WISP surely wouldn't want that. >> >> "$24 billion needed to close the gap by 2020 (mostly accomplished >> by USF modifications): >> >> "shift from supporting legacy telephone networks to directly >> supporting >> high-capacity broadband deployments" >> >> "Only one recipient per NGU" >> >> "One awardee per territory (county levels are suspected)" >> >> So what that says to me is that we are in trouble. NBP's intent is to >> give >> the remaing userved market to monoplies. >> And more so it suggests USF could be one of the biggest threats to >> WISPs, >> because the program could generate enough funds to successfully fund >> giving >> all the remaining prime unserved markets to ILECs. >> What it says to me is, NBP's intent is to REPEAT the mistake of the >> Original >> USF, by replicating the flaws for broadband. >> >> "HOW DOES THAT PROMOTE COMPETITION? IMHO, this creates >> Mini-monopolies in each service territory " >> >> All I can say to that is, AMEN! I here ya. >> >> What bothers me the most is.... NOT ONE SINGLE WORD to preserving small >> local operators and competition. >> Not one word about strengthening the "provider industry" as a whole. >> This is a plan to extinguish an industry, in favor of building mini >> monopolies.. >> Unless we stop that destrutive mind set, or derail progress, our >> industry >> is doomed. >> >> Tom DeReggi >> RapidDSL& Wireless, Inc >> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Rick Harnish"<rharn...@wispa.org> >> To:<memb...@wispa.org>;<motor...@afmug.com>; "'WISPA General List'" >> <wireless@wispa.org> >> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 10:33 AM >> Subject: [WISPA] National Broadband Plan effects on Rural ILECs and >> SmallTelecom Provider's >> >> >> Yesterday, I attended a conference of primarily Rural ILECs with a >> focus on >> the National Broadband Plan. It was very interesting to hear another >> perspective of the plan other than from the wireless industry. Below I >> will >> outline some major talking points that were discussed. The first >> speaker >> was from NECA (National Exchange Carrier's Association). He started >> out the >> conversation by saying "The National Broadband Plan is a bad plan for >> Rural >> ILECs and Small telecommunication providers" >> >> >> >> Later in the program, I had a chance to introduce myself and WISPA. >> Someone >> asked the question, "What can we do to proactively voice our concerns". >> I >> recommended that small trade associations break down the barriers when >> common interests are at stake. It is essential that partnering between >> associations will give NPRM/NOI comments more credibility and a greater >> likelihood be successful. Partnering may also lower lobbying and legal >> costs which WILL BE substantial in the next few years. My prediction >> is >> that many small trade associations will exhaust all capital required to >> effectively lobby to protect their particular industry interests and >> will >> cease to exist. It is important that STA's search for efficient >> methods to >> reach satisfactory conclusions. STA's must seek full support from >> their >> industry participants and in many cases, raise dues to meet the >> lobbying >> demand which is already on the table. It is also essential that >> cooperative >> lobbying efforts be adopted between associations to conserve funding. >> >> >> >> Someone asked me who I thought was behind the National Broadband Plan. >> Having been a participant representing WISPA at the National Broadband >> Coalition meetings, it became apparent to me that Washington lobbyists >> and >> attorneys have the most to gain by creating conflict and rewriting >> telecom >> rules. Do we need a strategic plan? Absolutely! Do we need >> everything >> that has been proposed? Absolutely NOT! From my perspective, this >> proposed >> plan is very two-faced. While proponents say they want to promote >> competition, it appears that small competition will be forced out of >> business. The devil is in the details. >> >> >> >> We can succeed but we need nearly total cooperation from all WISPs. >> >> We need to build our membership base substantially over the next few >> months. >> >> >> We need to seek out new Association partners. >> >> We need to improve our Broadband speeds >> >> We need to continue to lobby for more usable spectrum and use it >> efficiently >> >> We need to continue to push manufacturers to improve performance, speed >> and >> capacity >> >> We need to better promote our industry and its capabilities >> >> We need to be less "selfish" with our hard-earned revenues as insurance >> to >> protect our businesses from over regulation by supporting our trade >> association >> >> We need to be more proactive instead of reactive. >> >> We need to complain less and be more constructive. In fighting will >> get us >> nowhere. >> >> We need to reach out to neighboring WISPs in your state or area and >> promote >> the need to support WISPA >> >> >> >> The time is now, there is little time to waste. We either stand up and >> be >> recognized or we will begin to die a slow and painful death. I'm an >> optimist by nature and I struggle to write these realities, but they >> need to >> be said. >> >> >> >> Below is an outline of the speech from yesterday. >> >> >> >> National Broadband Plan Overview: >> >> · "The NBP is a strategic plan; it is not a series of rules" >> Carol >> Mattey, Deputy Bureau Chief, FCC Wireline Competition Bureau. >> >> · Numerous NPRMs forthcoming (60 are proposed in the next >> twelve >> months) >> >> >> >> National Broadband Plan Goals: >> >> · Promote world leading mobile broadband >> >> · Foster competition and maximize benefits >> >> · Advance and secure public safety communications >> >> · Increase Broadband access and adoption >> >> o Introduces recommendations to reform federal USF programs and the >> ICC >> system >> >> · Speed Goals (by 2020) (Actual throughput between the >> customer and >> the closest Internet Gateway) >> >> o 4/1 Mbps national minimum >> >> o 100/50 Mbps to 100 million homes >> >> o 1 Gbps (downstream) to Anchor Institutions >> >> · "Over time these targets will continue to rise" >> >> o Reevaluate speeds every 4 years >> >> · Close the "broadband availability gap" >> >> o 14 million individuals in 7 million "housing units" >> >> § 50% in RBOC territory (which RBOC's were claimed to have done a >> relatively poor job of broadband deployment) >> >> · $24 billion needed to close the gap by 2020 (mostly >> accomplished >> by USF modifications) >> >> o Does not include the cost of maintaining "served" areas >> >> · Additional congressional support suggested >> >> >> >> National Broadband Plan Time Frame >> >> · Implement USF and ICC reforms over 10 years in three stages >> >> o Stage 1 (2010-2011) - Mapping - data gathering, rulemaking, limited >> implementation (Heavy reliance on data gathering so educated decisions >> can >> be made) >> >> o Stage 2 (2012-2016) - Most reforms begin >> >> o Stage 3 (2017-2020) -Complete transitions >> >> >> >> Proposed USF Reforms >> >> · Increase Broadband availability by: >> >> o "modernizing" the High Cost Fund to target Broadband deployment >> >> § Completely gutting existing USF programs and replacing with new >> programs >> >> § "shift from supporting legacy telephone networks to directly >> supporting >> high-capacity broadband deployments" >> >> § 91% of funding proposed to go to Broadband capable networks >> >> o Remove Broadband adoption barriers by: >> >> § Modifying lifeline, rural health care and E-rate programs >> >> · Existing non-adopter concerns >> >> o Affordability >> >> o Internet of no relevance to their lives >> >> o Personal security concerns >> >> · New Funding Mechanisms >> >> o Mobility Fund >> >> § Provide support for deployment of 3G networks >> >> · Short lived >> >> · Nationwide ubiquitous coverage >> >> § Assist in ubiquitous 3G coverage >> >> · Provide footprint of future 4G services >> >> § One time disbursement in Stage 2 (2012 target) >> >> · To states lagging behind the national average >> >> · Capital expenditures only - no OPEX >> >> o Connect America Fund (CAF) >> >> § Provide support to preserve and advance Internet connectivity >> >> § Address the Broadband availability gap >> >> § Support only to geographic areas lacking a "private sector business >> case" >> >> · "Neutral geographic units" >> >> o Not study areas (present model) >> >> o Mapping based on census level information >> >> o Proposed NGU's are counties >> >> § Eligibility >> >> · Provide 4/1 Mbps Broadband and "high quality" voice service >> >> · Only one recipient per NGU >> >> · Company and Technology agnostic >> >> o Incumbant or Competitor >> >> o Rural and Non-Rural >> >> · Meet "Broadband provider of last resort obligation" >> >> § Support Amounts >> >> · Include CAOEX and may include OPEX >> >> o "Fast Track" CAPEX only >> >> · Include Middle Mile costs >> >> · Support Levels based on "net gap" principle >> >> o Forward looking cost less revenues >> >> o Based on modeling >> >> · Distribution begins in Stage 2 >> >> o Cap USF support at 2010 levels (contribution factor is too high >> presently and is a political hot potato) >> >> o Focus first on areas requiring lower support amounts (It is >> estimated >> that it will cost $56,000/subscriber to get the final 250,000 citizens >> hooked up to Broadband", thus they will lag behind) >> >> o Selections for both funds to be market based >> >> § Competitive procurement auctions proposed >> >> · USF funding price for a given market will be set high >> >> · Bidders will bid down the price until the lowest bidder is >> achieved >> >> · One awardee per territory (county levels are suspected) >> >> · Awardee will gain exclusive USF subsidies fCoor each >> territory >> >> · HOW DOES THAT PROMOTE COMPETITION? IMHO, this creates >> Mini-monopolies in each service territory >> >> · It is anticipated that mobile broadband providers will be the >> big >> winners in this scenario >> >> o Other Programs >> >> § Modify Lifeline and Link-up programs to include broadband services >> (use >> only service that includes voice) >> >> § Enhance health care and E-Rate programs (increasing speeds up to 1 >> Gbps) >> >> § Other potential enhancements via pilot programs >> >> · CPE and modem subsidies to end user cost and increase >> adoption >> >> o Funding Shift >> >> § Stage 1 >> >> · Begin to phase out CETC support (estimated savings $3.9 >> billion) >> >> § Stage 2 >> >> · Redirect remaining CETC support (estimated savings $5.8 >> billion) >> >> o One provider will get support instead of multiple competitors in a >> given >> NGU >> >> o Redirect Interstate Access Support (estimated savings $4.0 billion) >> >> o Require Rate-of-Return carriers to move to incentive regulation >> (estimated savings $0) >> >> § Price capping >> >> § Designed for Monopoly areas >> >> o Freeze Interstate Common Line Support (estimated savings $1.8 >> billion) >> >> § Lines dropping 5-8%/year >> >> o Total Savings $15.5 billion >> >> § Savings refocused to CAF Program $11 billion >> >> § Mobility Fund-Erate and Switched Access $4 billion >> >> § Stage 3 >> >> · Eliminate remaining legacy programs >> >> o High cost loop >> >> o Funding Mechanism >> >> § "Broaden the USF contribution base to ensure USF remains sustainable >> over >> time" >> >> · Approach to be determined in Stage 1 >> >> · Implementation to begin in Stage 2 >> >> >> >> Proposed ICC Reform >> >> * Generalizations: >> >> * Switched Access is decreasing >> * Special Access is increasing >> >> * Stage 1 >> >> * Interim access arbitrage solution >> >> * Stage 2 >> >> * Reduce intrastate terminating rates to interstate levels >> * Reduce all originating and terminating access rates to reciprocal >> compensation levels >> * Eliminate all per minute ICC rates by 2020 >> >> * Allow for "alternate compensation arrangements" >> * Increased SLC, local rate rebalancing and possible USF funding for >> lost revenue >> >> >> >> Other NBP Recommendations >> >> * Wireless spectrum and data roaming >> * Computer ownership >> * Digital literacy >> * Public Safety >> * Smart Grid development >> * Promote competition >> >> * Pricing and performance transparency >> * Review wholesale competition rules >> * Infrastructure& Rights-of-way rule modifications >> * Set Top boxes >> >> >> >> Respectively and Join<http://signup.wispa.org/> WISPA Today, >> >> >> >> Rick Harnish >> >> President >> >> WISPA >> >> 260-307-4000 cell >> >> 866-317-2851 WISPA Office >> >> Skype: rick.harnish. >> >> rharn...@wispa.org >> >> >> >> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> --------- >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> --------- >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> --------- >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> --------- >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
