Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Lewis Bergman]

We have tried to Port Telco numbers off of several frontier CO's without
success. Has anyone had any luck with these or what it takes to be able to
get that done?

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 9:51 PM Seth Mattinen  wrote:

> On 4/15/20 5:21 PM, Jason McKemie wrote:
> > So they can do that and then just pick up and continue on as if nothing
> > ever happened?
>
>
> Contracts are only held against the little guys.
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Mike Hammett]

We've been doing it for 15 years. I'm not the one that does it, but I believe 
we enter them into their VFO system. We use that for other CLEC things, so I 
don't know if a voice-only CLEC would have that same tool or not. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Lewis Bergman"  
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 6:10:11 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it 


We have tried to Port Telco numbers off of several frontier CO's without 
success. Has anyone had any luck with these or what it takes to be able to get 
that done? 


On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 9:51 PM Seth Mattinen < se...@rollernet.us > wrote: 


On 4/15/20 5:21 PM, Jason McKemie wrote: 
> So they can do that and then just pick up and continue on as if nothing 
> ever happened? 


Contracts are only held against the little guys. 

-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 



-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Matt Hoppes]

Yup. We do it. My home phone VoIP number used to be a frontier number. 

What issue are you having?

> On Apr 16, 2020, at 7:58 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
> 
> --=_Part_1487_2018052107.1587038324397
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> 
> We've been doing it for 15 years. I'm not the one that does it, but I believe 
> we enter them into their VFO system. We use that for other CLEC things, so I 
> don't know if a voice-only CLEC would have that same tool or not. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> 
> From: "Lewis Bergman"  
> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 6:10:11 AM 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it...

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Bad chain on Airfiber 24. Which radio is the bad apple?

[Mark Radabaugh]

We had a pair where that would happen.   If you can deal with the loss in 
power, try dropping the transmit power 2 or 3dB.   If the problem goes away 
with slightly lower power, you have found the bad transmitter.

Mark

> On Apr 15, 2020, at 10:20 PM, Colin Stanners  wrote:
> 
> My understanding is that it's usually the mouth that is bad, RF amplifiers 
> being more high-power/ high-heat devices.
> 
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 9:17 PM Sam Lambie  > wrote:
> I have a set of Airfiber 24 that have been in operation for about 5 years. 
> Every once in a while, they would kind of gak with a missing chain -57/-89 
> and a reboot of them would bring them back to life. Now, that isn't 
> happening. To be honest, I sometimes find it hard to tell if it's the ear or 
> the mouth that is bad. So, I'l post a screenshot of what I am talking about 
> and maybe someone can point me in the right direction. This radio is the 
> Master. Both radios have been upgraded to the latest greatest as of today and 
> bot have been rebooted with no difference in signal. Of course it'll be the 
> bad radio cause it's 80 feet off the deck. The other radio is 20 feet high on 
> a roof. But I would appreciate if y'all could give a little insight.
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -- 
> Sam Lambie
> Taosnet Wireless Tech.
> 575-758-7598 Office
> www.Taosnet.com -- 
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com 
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 
> 
> -- 
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Ken Hohhof]

We have done it for years, I haven't ported a Frontier number for a few
months though.  Usually if there's a problem, it's they claim there's an LNP
freeze on the account and we have to get the customer to call Frontier
customer service and have the freeze removed.  Don't do this preemptively
though, that may result in the opposite of what you want.

The only other problem would be the customer name or address doesn't match
what is on the account.  This is to protect against slamming.  Best to get a
copy of the most recent Frontier bill.

If the port is rejected, you should get a reason code.


-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 7:03 AM
To: Mike Hammett 
Cc: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it

Yup. We do it. My home phone VoIP number used to be a frontier number. 

What issue are you having?

> On Apr 16, 2020, at 7:58 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
> 
> --=_Part_1487_2018052107.1587038324397
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> 
> We've been doing it for 15 years. I'm not the one that does it, but I
believe we enter them into their VFO system. We use that for other CLEC
things, so I don't know if a voice-only CLEC would have that same tool or
not. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> 
> From: "Lewis Bergman"  
> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 6:10:11 AM 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it...

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com



-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Adam Moffett]

I've had a VoIP carrier tell me they can't port the number because they 
can't serve that LADA or that CO or some such.  I never understood why 
that was an issue.


I don't think it's been an issue recently.


On 4/16/2020 7:10 AM, Lewis Bergman wrote:
We have tried to Port Telco numbers off of several frontier CO's 
without success. Has anyone had any luck with these or what it takes 
to be able to get that done?


On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 9:51 PM Seth Mattinen > wrote:


On 4/15/20 5:21 PM, Jason McKemie wrote:
> So they can do that and then just pick up and continue on as if
nothing
> ever happened?


Contracts are only held against the little guys.

-- 
AF mailing list

AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com


-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Mike Hammett]

Not serving the LATA makes sense. They'd have a build out cost to that area's 
tandem switch(es). 


Not serving a particular CO in a LATA could be that CO is attached to a tandem 
(in the case of multiple tandems) that the VoIP carrier doesn't connect to. It 
could also mean that there is a high volume of calls with that particular CO 
and the cost for them to get a PRI directly to that CO is prohibitive. If you 
have over a certain volume to a particular switch, the tandem operator will 
often make you connect directly to that switch, reserving tandem switch 
capacity. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Adam Moffett"  
To: af@af.afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 9:52:56 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it 


I've had a VoIP carrier tell me they can't port the number because they can't 
serve that LADA or that CO or some such. I never understood why that was an 
issue. 

I don't think it's been an issue recently. 


On 4/16/2020 7:10 AM, Lewis Bergman wrote: 



We have tried to Port Telco numbers off of several frontier CO's without 
success. Has anyone had any luck with these or what it takes to be able to get 
that done? 


On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 9:51 PM Seth Mattinen < se...@rollernet.us > wrote: 


On 4/15/20 5:21 PM, Jason McKemie wrote: 
> So they can do that and then just pick up and continue on as if nothing 
> ever happened? 


Contracts are only held against the little guys. 

-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 






-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[chuck]

In the LATA data base each switch is specified to be port capable or not.  I 
think they have to make the switch port capable if they receive a “bona fide” 
request.  

From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 8:57 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it

Not serving the LATA makes sense. They'd have a build out cost to that area's 
tandem switch(es). 

Not serving a particular CO in a LATA could be that CO is attached to a tandem 
(in the case of multiple tandems) that the VoIP carrier doesn't connect to. It 
could also mean that there is a high volume of calls with that particular CO 
and the cost for them to get a PRI directly to that CO is prohibitive. If you 
have over a certain volume to a particular switch, the tandem operator will 
often make you connect directly to that switch, reserving tandem switch 
capacity.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP








From: "Adam Moffett" 
To: af@af.afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 9:52:56 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it


I've had a VoIP carrier tell me they can't port the number because they can't 
serve that LADA or that CO or some such.  I never understood why that was an 
issue.  


I don't think it's been an issue recently.



On 4/16/2020 7:10 AM, Lewis Bergman wrote:

  We have tried to Port Telco numbers off of several frontier CO's without 
success. Has anyone had any luck with these or what it takes to be able to get 
that done? 

  On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 9:51 PM Seth Mattinen  wrote:

On 4/15/20 5:21 PM, Jason McKemie wrote:
> So they can do that and then just pick up and continue on as if nothing 
> ever happened?


Contracts are only held against the little guys.

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com


   

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com





-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Ken Hohhof]

Well, that’s true.  Generally if you can get new numbers in that CO you can 
port numbers.

 

We use VoIP Innovations, they have multiple underlying CLECs.  Usually we can 
port numbers to Level3.  A couple towns in our service area they aren’t, or 
didn’t used to be, a choice.  Sometimes we had to use Bandwidth.com, there were 
a couple others that came and went, more recently Inteliquent has emerged as 
another choice with wide coverage.  Inteliquent has a complicated history of 
acquisitions/mergers/spinoffs involving Onvoy, Zayo, Broadvox, Vitelity, I 
don’t know the whole story.

 

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 9:53 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it

 

I've had a VoIP carrier tell me they can't port the number because they can't 
serve that LADA or that CO or some such.  I never understood why that was an 
issue.  

I don't think it's been an issue recently.

 

On 4/16/2020 7:10 AM, Lewis Bergman wrote:

We have tried to Port Telco numbers off of several frontier CO's without 
success. Has anyone had any luck with these or what it takes to be able to get 
that done? 

 

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 9:51 PM Seth Mattinen mailto:se...@rollernet.us> > wrote:

On 4/15/20 5:21 PM, Jason McKemie wrote:
> So they can do that and then just pick up and continue on as if nothing 
> ever happened?


Contracts are only held against the little guys.

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com  
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com





-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Adam Moffett]

Right, but interestingly it was always a Frontier number.  I've heard a 
similar explanation before (that they need an interconnect to that 
area), but I'm wondering if Frontier somehow made that difficult to 
achieve.  Then I wonder: Isn't there a central LNP database?  (Used to 
be Neustar, but it's another company now). The LNP database tells a 
caller where to send the callwhy would they need a physical 
connection to any particular place to make that happen?



.and yeah I haven't had this issue for a long time so I stopped 
caring.  But I'm betting Lewis is seeing something similar.  If so, 
check Voip Innovations and maybe one of their 20+ carriers can port the 
number in.





On 4/16/2020 10:57 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Not serving the LATA makes sense. They'd have a build out cost to that 
area's tandem switch(es).


Not serving a particular CO in a LATA could be that CO is attached to 
a tandem (in the case of multiple tandems) that the VoIP carrier 
doesn't connect to. It could also mean that there is a high volume of 
calls with that particular CO and the cost for them to get a PRI 
directly to that CO is prohibitive. If you have over a certain volume 
to a particular switch, the tandem operator will often make you 
connect directly to that switch, reserving tandem switch capacity.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 





*From: *"Adam Moffett" 
*To: *af@af.afmug.com
*Sent: *Thursday, April 16, 2020 9:52:56 AM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it

I've had a VoIP carrier tell me they can't port the number because 
they can't serve that LADA or that CO or some such.  I never 
understood why that was an issue.


I don't think it's been an issue recently.


On 4/16/2020 7:10 AM, Lewis Bergman wrote:

We have tried to Port Telco numbers off of several frontier CO's
without success. Has anyone had any luck with these or what it
takes to be able to get that done?

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 9:51 PM Seth Mattinen mailto:se...@rollernet.us>> wrote:

On 4/15/20 5:21 PM, Jason McKemie wrote:
> So they can do that and then just pick up and continue on as
if nothing
> ever happened?


Contracts are only held against the little guys.

-- 
AF mailing list

AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com



--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com


-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Lewis Bergman]

Let me be clear. Most areas we can port easily from Frontier Like Ballinger
and Winters. But Some, like Comanche, TX I can't.

the LATA 961 is the same for both.
The problems are in NPA 325 NXX 330 & 356 and NPA 254 NXX 879 in this
example.

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 10:11 AM Ken Hohhof  wrote:

> Well, that’s true.  Generally if you can get new numbers in that CO you
> can port numbers.
>
>
>
> We use VoIP Innovations, they have multiple underlying CLECs.  Usually we
> can port numbers to Level3.  A couple towns in our service area they
> aren’t, or didn’t used to be, a choice.  Sometimes we had to use
> Bandwidth.com, there were a couple others that came and went, more recently
> Inteliquent has emerged as another choice with wide coverage.  Inteliquent
> has a complicated history of acquisitions/mergers/spinoffs involving Onvoy,
> Zayo, Broadvox, Vitelity, I don’t know the whole story.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Adam Moffett
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 16, 2020 9:53 AM
> *To:* af@af.afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it
>
>
>
> I've had a VoIP carrier tell me they can't port the number because they
> can't serve that LADA or that CO or some such.  I never understood why that
> was an issue.
>
> I don't think it's been an issue recently.
>
>
>
> On 4/16/2020 7:10 AM, Lewis Bergman wrote:
>
> We have tried to Port Telco numbers off of several frontier CO's without
> success. Has anyone had any luck with these or what it takes to be able to
> get that done?
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 9:51 PM Seth Mattinen  wrote:
>
> On 4/15/20 5:21 PM, Jason McKemie wrote:
> > So they can do that and then just pick up and continue on as if nothing
> > ever happened?
>
>
> Contracts are only held against the little guys.
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>


-- 
Lewis Bergman
325-439-0533 Cell
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] South Dakota

[Jaime Solorza]

I asked about Matt Larsen..he is a fellow WISP..
I am not offering any other comments. But you know where I stand... hasn't
changed , will not change.

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 9:04 PM Colin Stanners  wrote:

> I request to put the OT: header on anything that is not quite directly
> WISP-related... As much as I enjoy the good coronavirus and other
> conversations that the smart and reasonable people on this list have, I'd
> like to keep the non-WISP conversations filterable. Thank you.
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 8:08 PM Jaime Solorza 
> wrote:
>
>> It's getting bad in Sioux Falls... doesn't Matt Larsen have service in
>> that area?
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

[AFMUG] Saf to af11 waveguide adapter

[TJ Trout]

Chuck do you make this adapter?

Lumina to af-11 ? (Whatever the lumina waveguide port type is to nmale )

need to climb up and get the part number of the antennas not even sure what
waveguide port they have according to the lumina spec sheet there can be
like 10 different interfaces...
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Saf to af11 waveguide adapter

[chuck]

I don’t think we did a SAF adapter.  We have pretty much quit doing all 
adapters due to extremely low levels of sales.  There is no money in them if I 
cannot run more than 100 at a time.  

From: TJ Trout 
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 10:02 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: [AFMUG] Saf to af11 waveguide adapter

Chuck do you make this adapter? 

Lumina to af-11 ? (Whatever the lumina waveguide port type is to nmale )

need to climb up and get the part number of the antennas not even sure what 
waveguide port they have according to the lumina spec sheet there can be like 
10 different interfaces...





-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

[AFMUG] OT - JEEP, Atlas, Octagon, Freejack and Zodiac

[Ken Hohhof]

I would say this is conspiracy theory nonsense, but it's from Newsweek.  Is
this for real?

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/exclusive-secret-military-task-force-prepa
res-to-secure-the-u-s-capital/ar-BB12IZtv

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Edge Router Options

[Peter Kranz via AF]

I should mention the $12k price is grey market pricing.. ~22k from Arista with 
a decent discount. The MPLS stack is good to go from my point of view, you can 
review the docs online to see if the features you need are available. 

 

Peter Kranz
www.UnwiredLtd.com  
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
Mobile: 510-207-
pkr...@unwiredltd.com  

 

From: Mark Frost  
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 4:02 PM
To: pkr...@unwiredltd.com; 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' 
Subject: RE: [AFMUG] Edge Router Options

 

That’s not bad at all.

 

Has the MPLS stack on Aristas advanced anymore recently?

 

 

From: Peter Kranz mailto:pkr...@unwiredltd.com> > 
Sent: Thursday, 16 April 2020 02:12
To: Mark Frost mailto:mfr...@onq.com.au> >; 'AnimalFarm 
Microwave Users Group' mailto:af@af.afmug.com> >
Subject: RE: [AFMUG] Edge Router Options

 

~12k for a 7280R2 w/ flexroute and expanded memory.

 

Peter Kranz
www.UnwiredLtd.com  
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
Mobile: 510-207-
pkr...@unwiredltd.com  

 

From: Mark Frost mailto:mfr...@onq.com.au> > 
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 5:47 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com> >
Cc: Peter Kranz mailto:pkr...@unwiredltd.com> >
Subject: RE: [AFMUG] Edge Router Options

 

Hi Peter,

 

What sort of numbers are you looking at for the 7280SR with flexroute?

 

Cheers,
Mark

 

From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On Behalf 
Of Peter Kranz via AF
Sent: Wednesday, 15 April 2020 08:19
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' mailto:af@af.afmug.com> >
Cc: Peter Kranz mailto:pkr...@unwiredltd.com> >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Edge Router Options

 

You may want to consider Arista w/ flexroute for full routes. The 7280SR 
platform is 48 10G ports + 6 100G ports.

 

Peter Kranz
www.UnwiredLtd.com  
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
Mobile: 510-207-
pkr...@unwiredltd.com  

 

From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On Behalf 
Of Gilbert Gutierrez
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 11:14 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com  
Subject: [AFMUG] Edge Router Options

 

I am looking to move away from Microtik on my edge. I have two CCR1072-1G-8s+ 
routers and have had stability problems with random reboots over the last year 
of using them. I am thinking of the Juniper MX80 platform but do not know 
anything about their licensing (looking at used ones that I can get for about 
$5k). I also do not know what other options are out there.

I am needing 10G ports

Support for OSPF

Support for BGP full routes from multiple carriers

MPLS would be nice

Support VLANs

Support for various MTU sizes

 

Thank you,

Gilbert

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Mike Hammett]

Unless you're using a mutually agreed upon third party such as Inteliquent's 
Neutral Tandem or Peerless Networks, all calls go out a termination provider of 
some kind, through a variety of sold and resold long distance services, finally 
arriving at an area's long distance tandem switch. From there, CLECs attach 
their switches (whether local or over some kind of DS1 transport) to that 
switch. Calls are then completed to the customer. I don't know of any bypass 
requirements on this switch. 


If it's a locally originated call, you go to another tandem switch (generally 
if not always at the same location) that just serves the ratecenters in that 
LATA that tandem site serves. If there's a large town served by this tandem, 
you more than likely will cross 24 peak calls often. The tandem switch operator 
will then make the two parties (you and the other operator you have more than 
24 calls to) arrange your own direct DS1s. Usually the other party is the ILEC, 
but it could very well be the cable MSO if they have a high penetration in the 
market. If that ILEC switch is in the same building as you, the DS1 is pretty 
cheap. If that ILEC switch is some independent operator that's quite far away, 
you may have few options of connecting directly with them. It could cost you 
hundreds if not thousands of dollars a month for that DS1, purely because there 
are limited options. Obviously there's a range of scenarios between major ILEC 
in the same building and a remote independent ILEC. In that high cost scenario, 
you're likely to discourage traffic to\from that switch to the point where you 
don't accept new customers likely to have a lot of traffic there (usually same 
ratecenter). 




That happens (or some variation of that to correct for the pieces I messed up) 
no matter what. 


LNP just converts the dialed number into a pre-defined number (LRN) that a 
carrier has in non-portable space (a 10k block). That number is just used for 
PSTN routing. Once it hits the destination switch, it routes based on the 
actual dialed number. 


BTW: 1k blocks are just LNP entries for all 1k numbers in that block to the 
carrier. 





- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Adam Moffett"  
To: af@af.afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 10:42:43 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it 


Right, but interestingly it was always a Frontier number. I've heard a similar 
explanation before (that they need an interconnect to that area), but I'm 
wondering if Frontier somehow made that difficult to achieve. Then I wonder: 
Isn't there a central LNP database? (Used to be Neustar, but it's another 
company now). The LNP database tells a caller where to send the callwhy 
would they need a physical connection to any particular place to make that 
happen? 



.and yeah I haven't had this issue for a long time so I stopped caring. But 
I'm betting Lewis is seeing something similar. If so, check Voip Innovations 
and maybe one of their 20+ carriers can port the number in. 






On 4/16/2020 10:57 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: 



Not serving the LATA makes sense. They'd have a build out cost to that area's 
tandem switch(es). 


Not serving a particular CO in a LATA could be that CO is attached to a tandem 
(in the case of multiple tandems) that the VoIP carrier doesn't connect to. It 
could also mean that there is a high volume of calls with that particular CO 
and the cost for them to get a PRI directly to that CO is prohibitive. If you 
have over a certain volume to a particular switch, the tandem operator will 
often make you connect directly to that switch, reserving tandem switch 
capacity. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Adam Moffett"  
To: af@af.afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 9:52:56 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it 


I've had a VoIP carrier tell me they can't port the number because they can't 
serve that LADA or that CO or some such. I never understood why that was an 
issue. 

I don't think it's been an issue recently. 


On 4/16/2020 7:10 AM, Lewis Bergman wrote: 



We have tried to Port Telco numbers off of several frontier CO's without 
success. Has anyone had any luck with these or what it takes to be able to get 
that done? 


On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 9:51 PM Seth Mattinen < se...@rollernet.us > wrote: 


On 4/15/20 5:21 PM, Jason McKemie wrote: 
> So they can do that and then just pick up and continue on as if nothing 
> ever happened? 


Contracts are only held against the little guys. 

-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 






-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 





-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Mike Hammett]

Different tandem switch. 


https://www.telcodata.us/search-switches-by-tandem-clli?cllicode=BWWDTXXA02T 
vs 
https://www.telcodata.us/search-switches-by-tandem-clli?cllicode=SANGTXXA02T 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Lewis Bergman"  
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 10:56:17 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it 


Let me be clear. Most areas we can port easily from Frontier Like Ballinger and 
Winters. But Some, like Comanche, TX I can't. 


the LATA 961 is the same for both. 
The problems are in NPA 325 NXX 330 & 356 and NPA 254 NXX 879 in this example. 


On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 10:11 AM Ken Hohhof < af...@kwisp.com > wrote: 





Well, that’s true. Generally if you can get new numbers in that CO you can port 
numbers. 

We use VoIP Innovations, they have multiple underlying CLECs. Usually we can 
port numbers to Level3. A couple towns in our service area they aren’t, or 
didn’t used to be, a choice. Sometimes we had to use Bandwidth.com, there were 
a couple others that came and went, more recently Inteliquent has emerged as 
another choice with wide coverage. Inteliquent has a complicated history of 
acquisitions/mergers/spinoffs involving Onvoy, Zayo, Broadvox, Vitelity, I 
don’t know the whole story. 




From: AF < af-boun...@af.afmug.com > On Behalf Of Adam Moffett 
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 9:53 AM 
To: af@af.afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it 

I've had a VoIP carrier tell me they can't port the number because they can't 
serve that LADA or that CO or some such. I never understood why that was an 
issue. 
I don't think it's been an issue recently. 


On 4/16/2020 7:10 AM, Lewis Bergman wrote: 



We have tried to Port Telco numbers off of several frontier CO's without 
success. Has anyone had any luck with these or what it takes to be able to get 
that done? 



On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 9:51 PM Seth Mattinen < se...@rollernet.us > wrote: 


On 4/15/20 5:21 PM, Jason McKemie wrote: 
> So they can do that and then just pick up and continue on as if nothing 
> ever happened? 


Contracts are only held against the little guys. 

-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 






-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 





-- 


Lewis Bergman 
325-439-0533 Cell 
-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Adam Moffett]

Ok, so I'm a ported voip number calling another ported voip number (and 
that's more common today than any actual PSTN termination). What does 
the local tandem have to do with it anymore?



On 4/16/2020 1:42 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Unless you're using a mutually agreed upon third party such as 
Inteliquent's Neutral Tandem or Peerless Networks, all calls go out a 
termination provider of some kind, through a variety of sold and 
resold long distance services, finally arriving at an area's long 
distance tandem switch. From there, CLECs attach their switches 
(whether local or over some kind of DS1 transport) to that switch. 
Calls are then completed to the customer. I don't know of any bypass 
requirements on this switch.


If it's a locally originated call, you go to another tandem switch 
(generally if not always at the same location) that just serves the 
ratecenters in that LATA that tandem site serves. If there's a large 
town served by this tandem, you more than likely will cross 24 peak 
calls often. The tandem switch operator will then make the two parties 
(you and the other operator you have more than 24 calls to) arrange 
your own direct DS1s. Usually the other party is the ILEC, but it 
could very well be the cable MSO if they have a high penetration in 
the market. If that ILEC switch is in the same building as you, the 
DS1 is pretty cheap. If that ILEC switch is some independent operator 
that's quite far away, you may have few options of connecting directly 
with them. It could cost you hundreds if not thousands of dollars a 
month for that DS1, purely because there are limited options. 
Obviously there's a range of scenarios between major ILEC in the same 
building and a remote independent ILEC. In that high cost scenario, 
you're likely to discourage traffic to\from that switch to the point 
where you don't accept new customers likely to have a lot of traffic 
there (usually same ratecenter).



That happens (or some variation of that to correct for the pieces I 
messed up) no matter what.


LNP just converts the dialed number into a pre-defined number (LRN) 
that a carrier has in non-portable space (a 10k block). That number is 
just used for PSTN routing. Once it hits the destination switch, it 
routes based on the actual dialed number.


BTW: 1k blocks are just LNP entries for all 1k numbers in that block 
to the carrier.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 





*From: *"Adam Moffett" 
*To: *af@af.afmug.com
*Sent: *Thursday, April 16, 2020 10:42:43 AM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it

Right, but interestingly it was always a Frontier number.  I've heard 
a similar explanation before (that they need an interconnect to that 
area), but I'm wondering if Frontier somehow made that difficult to 
achieve.  Then I wonder: Isn't there a central LNP database?  (Used to 
be Neustar, but it's another company now). The LNP database tells a 
caller where to send the callwhy would they need a physical 
connection to any particular place to make that happen?



.and yeah I haven't had this issue for a long time so I stopped 
caring.  But I'm betting Lewis is seeing something similar.  If so, 
check Voip Innovations and maybe one of their 20+ carriers can port 
the number in.





On 4/16/2020 10:57 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

Not serving the LATA makes sense. They'd have a build out cost to
that area's tandem switch(es).

Not serving a particular CO in a LATA could be that CO is attached
to a tandem (in the case of multiple tandems) that the VoIP
carrier doesn't connect to. It could also mean that there is a
high volume of calls with that particular CO and the cost for them
to get a PRI directly to that CO is prohibitive. If you have over
a certain volume to a particular switch, the tandem operator will
often make you connect directly to that switch, reserving tandem
switch capacity.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 


Midwest Internet Exchange 

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Mike Hammett]

In the LATA I do most of my work in, Frontier is the dominate ILEC. They have a 
tandem switch in the largest town that serves all Frontier rate centers (20+) 
in the LATA, plus one independent. CenturyLink has another tandem switch. They 
have a handful (5 - 10) of ratecenters and their tandem switch also serves the 
couple AT&T rate centers. 




If you get numbers in a given rate center, I * believe* you have to have them 
attach to the same tandem switch that the ILEC in that rate center uses. I 
believe you can port any number in the LATA, but you still have to have a way 
of reaching that other tandem switch. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Mike Hammett"  
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 12:42:59 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it 


Unless you're using a mutually agreed upon third party such as Inteliquent's 
Neutral Tandem or Peerless Networks, all calls go out a termination provider of 
some kind, through a variety of sold and resold long distance services, finally 
arriving at an area's long distance tandem switch. From there, CLECs attach 
their switches (whether local or over some kind of DS1 transport) to that 
switch. Calls are then completed to the customer. I don't know of any bypass 
requirements on this switch. 


If it's a locally originated call, you go to another tandem switch (generally 
if not always at the same location) that just serves the ratecenters in that 
LATA that tandem site serves. If there's a large town served by this tandem, 
you more than likely will cross 24 peak calls often. The tandem switch operator 
will then make the two parties (you and the other operator you have more than 
24 calls to) arrange your own direct DS1s. Usually the other party is the ILEC, 
but it could very well be the cable MSO if they have a high penetration in the 
market. If that ILEC switch is in the same building as you, the DS1 is pretty 
cheap. If that ILEC switch is some independent operator that's quite far away, 
you may have few options of connecting directly with them. It could cost you 
hundreds if not thousands of dollars a month for that DS1, purely because there 
are limited options. Obviously there's a range of scenarios between major ILEC 
in the same building and a remote independent ILEC. In that high cost scenario, 
you're likely to discourage traffic to\from that switch to the point where you 
don't accept new customers likely to have a lot of traffic there (usually same 
ratecenter). 




That happens (or some variation of that to correct for the pieces I messed up) 
no matter what. 


LNP just converts the dialed number into a pre-defined number (LRN) that a 
carrier has in non-portable space (a 10k block). That number is just used for 
PSTN routing. Once it hits the destination switch, it routes based on the 
actual dialed number. 


BTW: 1k blocks are just LNP entries for all 1k numbers in that block to the 
carrier. 





- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Adam Moffett"  
To: af@af.afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 10:42:43 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it 


Right, but interestingly it was always a Frontier number. I've heard a similar 
explanation before (that they need an interconnect to that area), but I'm 
wondering if Frontier somehow made that difficult to achieve. Then I wonder: 
Isn't there a central LNP database? (Used to be Neustar, but it's another 
company now). The LNP database tells a caller where to send the callwhy 
would they need a physical connection to any particular place to make that 
happen? 



.and yeah I haven't had this issue for a long time so I stopped caring. But 
I'm betting Lewis is seeing something similar. If so, check Voip Innovations 
and maybe one of their 20+ carriers can port the number in. 






On 4/16/2020 10:57 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: 



Not serving the LATA makes sense. They'd have a build out cost to that area's 
tandem switch(es). 


Not serving a particular CO in a LATA could be that CO is attached to a tandem 
(in the case of multiple tandems) that the VoIP carrier doesn't connect to. It 
could also mean that there is a high volume of calls with that particular CO 
and the cost for them to get a PRI directly to that CO is prohibitive. If you 
have over a certain volume to a particular switch, the tandem operator will 
often make you connect directly to that switch, reserving tandem switch 
capacity. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Adam Moffett"  
To: af@af.afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 9:52:56 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it 


I've had a VoIP carrier tell me they can't 

Re: [AFMUG] Market saturation

[Dev]

477’s in our area are almost entirely works of fiction, sometime fantastic 
ones, like coverage where there are no residences, businesses, roads, or zero 
presence by the business filing the 477.

I think the relevant term is addressable market. There will always be 
opportunities which don’t pay, customers who aren’t interested but maybe should 
be, etc. Those will continue to be outside of the addressable market. 

> On Apr 15, 2020, at 12:05 PM, Brian Webster  wrote:
> 
> As Ken mentioned there are 2 different numbers to talk about. YOUR market 
> capture rate and total broadband adoption rate for a given area. In the 
> broadband mapping program we spent a lot of time on this topic. The best way 
> I can suggest you look at this is to first find the latest data on broadband 
> adoption for your state. That number should be typically between 70 and 80 
> percent. Meaning that of all households in a state, that percentage is 
> subscribed to some sort of broadband. It is a total aggregate number, not any 
> particular carrier. The next step then would be to figure out the number of 
> homes your network passes or can serve (you do know that don’t you?). The 
> further segment that number to the homes you are the only option and those 
> that you have competition. 
>  
> For the homes passed where you are the only option, you should be able to 
> achieve the state adoption rate as your market capture percentage. If not you 
> may want to consider spending time on your marketing and product placement 
> efforts. The fish don’t just jump in to the boat. You do have some 
> competition in the form of cellular and satellite but with proper advertising 
> and marketing efforts you  should be the major player.
>  
> For the homes you pass where there is competition, figuring out a good 
> penetration rate will be difficult depending on who the competition is. If 
> it’s only DSL you should be able to garner a higher take rate IF you are 
> doing a good job on marketing. Competing against the major cable companies, 
> they do a decent job so that’s real competition. Smaller providers will be a 
> mixed bag depending on how well those companies are run and their product 
> offerings.
>  
> The biggest and first thing that needs to be known if your total homes 
> passed. You can get a good idea of that by adding up the household counts for 
> the census blocks you show as served in your FCC form 477 filing because 
> those are supposed to show where you can serve, not just the ones your 
> billing platform shows where you have customers. You have been filing your 
> 477 reports haven’t you?
>  
> While those pain in the rump programs are required, you can take those 
> efforts and put the results to uses that do help with your business.
>  
> If you have been filing the form 477, I can even pull the latest FCC form 477 
> data and tell you which blocks you filed have other competition broadband in 
> them. This makes it easy to tally your homes passed both with and without 
> competition. Then you can use those results and compare them against your 
> customer data (and map those) to investigate the areas in your network where 
> your market rate seems to be weak and could benefit from improved efforts. Do 
> more to maximize those markets you have already invested in.
>  
> Thank you,
> Brian Webster
> www.wirelessmapping.com 
>  
> From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Lewis Bergman
> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 2:02 PM
> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Market saturation
>  
> Thats great. That shows the variability between markets.
>  
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 12:25 PM Mark Radabaugh  > wrote:
>> I’m sticking with my 85% number, and I have the customers and data to prove 
>> it.
>> 
>> Mark
>> 
>> > On Apr 15, 2020, at 9:48 AM, Matt Hoppes 
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > 
>> > That also is what we have found.
>> > 
>> > I was actually going to say 35% take rate -- but since I've gotten shot 
>> > down on previous e-mails where I've sent out "crazy" and "ridiculous" 
>> > statistics, I figured I'd send the higher end of the spectrum :)
>> > 
>> > On 4/15/20 9:12 AM, Lewis Bergman wrote:
>> >> I second the 50% rate. Probably 35% if you have some other competition 
>> >> other than satellite. At either one of those rates, you should have 
>> >> enough neighbor referrals that anything other than a yard sign would be a 
>> >> waste.
>> >> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 6:36 AM Matt Hoppes 
>> >> > >>  
>> >> > >> >> wrote:
>> >>We see about 50% take rate even when we are the only option.
>> >> > On Apr 15, 2020, at 6:26 AM, Mark Radabaugh > >> 
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >>

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Mike Hammett]

Many VoIP providers interface with Neutral Tandem, Peerless, or similar 
networks, so your call path doesn't touch that local switch. For anyone else 
(say the incumbent), the call path *WILL* involve that local tandem. Most 
providers aren't willing (or allowed) to half-ass it by having a number in that 
town and then just not connecting to the local tandem, effectively isolating 
from anyone that *IS* on that local tandem. 


The local and long distance tandems are switches of last resort. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Adam Moffett"  
To: af@af.afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 12:45:54 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it 


Ok, so I'm a ported voip number calling another ported voip number (and that's 
more common today than any actual PSTN termination). What does the local tandem 
have to do with it anymore? 



On 4/16/2020 1:42 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: 



Unless you're using a mutually agreed upon third party such as Inteliquent's 
Neutral Tandem or Peerless Networks, all calls go out a termination provider of 
some kind, through a variety of sold and resold long distance services, finally 
arriving at an area's long distance tandem switch. From there, CLECs attach 
their switches (whether local or over some kind of DS1 transport) to that 
switch. Calls are then completed to the customer. I don't know of any bypass 
requirements on this switch. 


If it's a locally originated call, you go to another tandem switch (generally 
if not always at the same location) that just serves the ratecenters in that 
LATA that tandem site serves. If there's a large town served by this tandem, 
you more than likely will cross 24 peak calls often. The tandem switch operator 
will then make the two parties (you and the other operator you have more than 
24 calls to) arrange your own direct DS1s. Usually the other party is the ILEC, 
but it could very well be the cable MSO if they have a high penetration in the 
market. If that ILEC switch is in the same building as you, the DS1 is pretty 
cheap. If that ILEC switch is some independent operator that's quite far away, 
you may have few options of connecting directly with them. It could cost you 
hundreds if not thousands of dollars a month for that DS1, purely because there 
are limited options. Obviously there's a range of scenarios between major ILEC 
in the same building and a remote independent ILEC. In that high cost scenario, 
you're likely to discourage traffic to\from that switch to the point where you 
don't accept new customers likely to have a lot of traffic there (usually same 
ratecenter). 




That happens (or some variation of that to correct for the pieces I messed up) 
no matter what. 


LNP just converts the dialed number into a pre-defined number (LRN) that a 
carrier has in non-portable space (a 10k block). That number is just used for 
PSTN routing. Once it hits the destination switch, it routes based on the 
actual dialed number. 


BTW: 1k blocks are just LNP entries for all 1k numbers in that block to the 
carrier. 





- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Adam Moffett"  
To: af@af.afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 10:42:43 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it 


Right, but interestingly it was always a Frontier number. I've heard a similar 
explanation before (that they need an interconnect to that area), but I'm 
wondering if Frontier somehow made that difficult to achieve. Then I wonder: 
Isn't there a central LNP database? (Used to be Neustar, but it's another 
company now). The LNP database tells a caller where to send the callwhy 
would they need a physical connection to any particular place to make that 
happen? 



.and yeah I haven't had this issue for a long time so I stopped caring. But 
I'm betting Lewis is seeing something similar. If so, check Voip Innovations 
and maybe one of their 20+ carriers can port the number in. 






On 4/16/2020 10:57 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: 



Not serving the LATA makes sense. They'd have a build out cost to that area's 
tandem switch(es). 


Not serving a particular CO in a LATA could be that CO is attached to a tandem 
(in the case of multiple tandems) that the VoIP carrier doesn't connect to. It 
could also mean that there is a high volume of calls with that particular CO 
and the cost for them to get a PRI directly to that CO is prohibitive. If you 
have over a certain volume to a particular switch, the tandem operator will 
often make you connect directly to that switch, reserving tandem switch 
capacity. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Adam Moffett"  
To: af@af.afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 9:52:56 AM 

Re: [AFMUG] Market saturation

[Mike Hammett]

Coverage is coverage, regardless if there's anyone there to use it. Obviously 
it has to be accurate, but a lack of market potential doesn't negate the lack 
of coverage. 


I think the rule is you have to be able to serve them within some standard 
installation interval. If you have easy or no permitting, a pile of Rohn 25 
sections, and the schedule availability, you could go drop a 200' tower 
anywhere in a county to get any customer anywhere. I don't recommend that, but 
if that's "normal" for you, then so be it. We all know reality is much 
different than that and the 477 needs to reflect that. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Dev"  
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 12:52:30 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Market saturation 

477’s in our area are almost entirely works of fiction, sometime fantastic 
ones, like coverage where there are no residences, businesses, roads, or zero 
presence by the business filing the 477. 


I think the relevant term is addressable market. There will always be 
opportunities which don’t pay, customers who aren’t interested but maybe should 
be, etc. Those will continue to be outside of the addressable market. 





On Apr 15, 2020, at 12:05 PM, Brian Webster < i...@wirelessmapping.com > wrote: 



As Ken mentioned there are 2 different numbers to talk about. YOUR market 
capture rate and total broadband adoption rate for a given area. In the 
broadband mapping program we spent a lot of time on this topic. The best way I 
can suggest you look at this is to first find the latest data on broadband 
adoption for your state. That number should be typically between 70 and 80 
percent. Meaning that of all households in a state, that percentage is 
subscribed to some sort of broadband. It is a total aggregate number, not any 
particular carrier. The next step then would be to figure out the number of 
homes your network passes or can serve (you do know that don’t you?). The 
further segment that number to the homes you are the only option and those that 
you have competition. 

For the homes passed where you are the only option, you should be able to 
achieve the state adoption rate as your market capture percentage. If not you 
may want to consider spending time on your marketing and product placement 
efforts. The fish don’t just jump in to the boat. You do have some competition 
in the form of cellular and satellite but with proper advertising and marketing 
efforts you should be the major player. 

For the homes you pass where there is competition, figuring out a good 
penetration rate will be difficult depending on who the competition is. If it’s 
only DSL you should be able to garner a higher take rate IF you are doing a 
good job on marketing. Competing against the major cable companies, they do a 
decent job so that’s real competition. Smaller providers will be a mixed bag 
depending on how well those companies are run and their product offerings. 

The biggest and first thing that needs to be known if your total homes passed. 
You can get a good idea of that by adding up the household counts for the 
census blocks you show as served in your FCC form 477 filing because those are 
supposed to show where you can serve, not just the ones your billing platform 
shows where you have customers. You have been filing your 477 reports haven’t 
you? 

While those pain in the rump programs are required, you can take those efforts 
and put the results to uses that do help with your business. 

If you have been filing the form 477, I can even pull the latest FCC form 477 
data and tell you which blocks you filed have other competition broadband in 
them. This makes it easy to tally your homes passed both with and without 
competition. Then you can use those results and compare them against your 
customer data (and map those) to investigate the areas in your network where 
your market rate seems to be weak and could benefit from improved efforts. Do 
more to maximize those markets you have already invested in. 

Thank you, 
Brian Webster 
www.wirelessmapping.com 

From: AF [ mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Lewis Bergman 
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 2:02 PM 
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Market saturation 


Thats great. That shows the variability between markets. 



On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 12:25 PM Mark Radabaugh < m...@amplex.net > wrote: 


I’m sticking with my 85% number, and I have the customers and data to prove it. 

Mark 

> On Apr 15, 2020, at 9:48 AM, Matt Hoppes < mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net 
> > wrote: 
> 
> That also is what we have found. 
> 
> I was actually going to say 35% take rate -- but since I've gotten shot down 
> on previous e-mails where I've sent out "crazy" and "ridiculous" statistics, 
> I figured I'd send the higher end of the spectrum :) 
> 
> On 4/15/20 9:12 

[AFMUG] 5.9 open now?

[Steve Jones]

KP just sent out an email saying FCC opened this up for use. did I miss
something, or are they just playing on the Temporary Use approvals?
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT - JEEP, Atlas, Octagon, Freejack and Zodiac

[Robert]

https://sports.yahoo.com/greenbrier-pga-tour-host-canceling-131736109.html

Why  would this be significant to this topic.   Greenbrier is one of the 
not-so-secret anymore government offsite emergency relocation centers 
for Washington.


On 4/16/20 9:39 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:


I would say this is conspiracy theory nonsense, but it’s from 
Newsweek.  Is this for real?


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/exclusive-secret-military-task-force-prepares-to-secure-the-u-s-capital/ar-BB12IZtv




-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Lewis Bergman]

Thanks,
I have found a contact at a Frontier tandem. I doubt that will help as the
mechanics of porting are a lot different than the process to get it moving.
Hopefully he can find someone that can give me the exact "what it takes".
It seems like it might take a CLEC status and a connection to that CLLI.

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:45 PM Mike Hammett  wrote:

> Different tandem switch.
>
>
> https://www.telcodata.us/search-switches-by-tandem-clli?cllicode=BWWDTXXA02T
> vs
>
> https://www.telcodata.us/search-switches-by-tandem-clli?cllicode=SANGTXXA02T
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Lewis Bergman" 
> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
> *Sent: *Thursday, April 16, 2020 10:56:17 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it
>
> Let me be clear. Most areas we can port easily from Frontier Like
> Ballinger and Winters. But Some, like Comanche, TX I can't.
>
> the LATA 961 is the same for both.
> The problems are in NPA 325 NXX 330 & 356 and NPA 254 NXX 879 in this
> example.
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 10:11 AM Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>
>> Well, that’s true.  Generally if you can get new numbers in that CO you
>> can port numbers.
>>
>>
>>
>> We use VoIP Innovations, they have multiple underlying CLECs.  Usually we
>> can port numbers to Level3.  A couple towns in our service area they
>> aren’t, or didn’t used to be, a choice.  Sometimes we had to use
>> Bandwidth.com, there were a couple others that came and went, more recently
>> Inteliquent has emerged as another choice with wide coverage.  Inteliquent
>> has a complicated history of acquisitions/mergers/spinoffs involving Onvoy,
>> Zayo, Broadvox, Vitelity, I don’t know the whole story.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Adam Moffett
>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 16, 2020 9:53 AM
>> *To:* af@af.afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it
>>
>>
>>
>> I've had a VoIP carrier tell me they can't port the number because they
>> can't serve that LADA or that CO or some such.  I never understood why that
>> was an issue.
>>
>> I don't think it's been an issue recently.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/16/2020 7:10 AM, Lewis Bergman wrote:
>>
>> We have tried to Port Telco numbers off of several frontier CO's without
>> success. Has anyone had any luck with these or what it takes to be able to
>> get that done?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 9:51 PM Seth Mattinen  wrote:
>>
>> On 4/15/20 5:21 PM, Jason McKemie wrote:
>> > So they can do that and then just pick up and continue on as if nothing
>> > ever happened?
>>
>>
>> Contracts are only held against the little guys.
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>
>
> --
> Lewis Bergman
> 325-439-0533 Cell
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>


-- 
Lewis Bergman
325-439-0533 Cell
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] South Dakota

[Carl Peterson]

Isn't Matt Larsen Vistabeam?  I think they are in NE not ND.

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 10:59 AM Jaime Solorza 
wrote:

> I asked about Matt Larsen..he is a fellow WISP..
> I am not offering any other comments. But you know where I stand... hasn't
> changed , will not change.
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 9:04 PM Colin Stanners  wrote:
>
>> I request to put the OT: header on anything that is not quite directly
>> WISP-related... As much as I enjoy the good coronavirus and other
>> conversations that the smart and reasonable people on this list have, I'd
>> like to keep the non-WISP conversations filterable. Thank you.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 8:08 PM Jaime Solorza 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It's getting bad in Sioux Falls... doesn't Matt Larsen have service in
>>> that area?
>>> --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>


-- 

Carl Peterson

*PORT NETWORKS*

401 E Pratt St, Ste 2553

Baltimore, MD 21202

(410) 637-3707
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT - JEEP, Atlas, Octagon, Freejack and Zodiac

[Bill Prince]

  
  
I would rate the headline as inflammatory, as the task force is
  not really "secret". I would say that the military brass
  surrounding the orange bluff-meister is preparing for a nasty
  outbreak around the DC area.


bp



On 4/16/2020 9:39 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:


  
  
  
  
I would say this is conspiracy theory
  nonsense, but it’s from Newsweek.  Is this for real?
 
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/exclusive-secret-military-task-force-prepares-to-secure-the-u-s-capital/ar-BB12IZtv
  
  
  

  


-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] South Dakota

[Carl Peterson]

I mean SD...
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Lewis Bergman]

Ages ago I had a full NXX in each rate center within about a hundred miles
of us. I think there were about 52 of them. I could use many, but many
ended up requiring us to get a T1 from that rate center to our CLLI to use.
As a result, maybe 20 something of them never got used. At that time we
were doing a lot of creative things with our paging  system so we didn't
have to pay anything other than OCN management and 502 reporting for all
that.

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:54 PM Mike Hammett  wrote:

> Many VoIP providers interface with Neutral Tandem, Peerless, or similar
> networks, so your call path doesn't touch that local switch. For anyone
> else (say the incumbent), the call path *WILL* involve that local tandem.
> Most providers aren't willing (or allowed) to half-ass it by having a
> number in that town and then just not connecting to the local tandem,
> effectively isolating from anyone that *IS* on that local tandem.
>
> The local and long distance tandems are switches of last resort.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Adam Moffett" 
> *To: *af@af.afmug.com
> *Sent: *Thursday, April 16, 2020 12:45:54 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it
>
> Ok, so I'm a ported voip number calling another ported voip number (and
> that's more common today than any actual PSTN termination). What does the
> local tandem have to do with it anymore?
>
>
> On 4/16/2020 1:42 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>
> Unless you're using a mutually agreed upon third party such as
> Inteliquent's Neutral Tandem or Peerless Networks, all calls go out a
> termination provider of some kind, through a variety of sold and resold
> long distance services, finally arriving at an area's long distance tandem
> switch. From there, CLECs attach their switches (whether local or over
> some kind of DS1 transport) to that switch. Calls are then completed to the
> customer. I don't know of any bypass requirements on this switch.
>
> If it's a locally originated call, you go to another tandem switch
> (generally if not always at the same location) that just serves the
> ratecenters in that LATA that tandem site serves. If there's a large town
> served by this tandem, you more than likely will cross 24 peak calls often.
> The tandem switch operator will then make the two parties (you and the
> other operator you have more than 24 calls to) arrange your own direct
> DS1s. Usually the other party is the ILEC, but it could very well be the
> cable MSO if they have a high penetration in the market. If that ILEC
> switch is in the same building as you, the DS1 is pretty cheap. If that
> ILEC switch is some independent operator that's quite far away, you may
> have few options of connecting directly with them. It could cost you
> hundreds if not thousands of dollars a month for that DS1, purely because
> there are limited options. Obviously there's a range of scenarios between
> major ILEC in the same building and a remote independent ILEC. In that high
> cost scenario, you're likely to discourage traffic to\from that switch to
> the point where you don't accept new customers likely to have a lot of
> traffic there (usually same ratecenter).
>
>
> That happens (or some variation of that to correct for the pieces I messed
> up) no matter what.
>
> LNP just converts the dialed number into a pre-defined number (LRN) that a
> carrier has in non-portable space (a 10k block). That number is just used
> for PSTN routing. Once it hits the destination switch, it routes based on
> the actual dialed number.
>
> BTW: 1k blocks are just LNP entries for all 1k numbers in that block to
> the carrier.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Adam Moffett"  
> *To: *af@af.afmug.com
> *Sent: *

Re: [AFMUG] OT - JEEP, Atlas, Octagon, Freejack and Zodiac

[Steve Jones]

I'd be more concerned if proactive measures werent in play. Not really
enough to be considered a burger, nothing or otherwise. There's a pandemic
and looming civil unrest. This isnt new

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020, 1:33 PM Bill Prince  wrote:

> I would rate the headline as inflammatory, as the task force is not really
> "secret". I would say that the military brass surrounding the orange
> bluff-meister is preparing for a nasty outbreak around the DC area.
>
>
> bp
> 
>
>
> On 4/16/2020 9:39 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>
> I would say this is conspiracy theory nonsense, but it’s from Newsweek.
> Is this for real?
>
>
>
>
> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/exclusive-secret-military-task-force-prepares-to-secure-the-u-s-capital/ar-BB12IZtv
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Dev]

Also, leak documents showing you chronically underfunded builds to pay 
shareholder dividends. Because that’s going to work long term.

https://stopthecap.com/2020/03/31/frontiers-inner-secrets-revealed-we-underinvested-for-years/
 


They sold off the northwest states, which have since been resold twice. But who 
wants plant that will suck millions to make work at some acceptable level? 
Sounds like a fire sale, you get the parts you want with the ones no one wants.

> On Apr 15, 2020, at 5:08 AM, Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
> 
> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/frontier-communications-files-bankruptcy-protection-030635273.html
>  
> 
> 
> Dump your debts and your obligations, get more money.   Round and round it 
> goes.
> 
> Mark
> -- 
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Mike Hammett]

Look for other CLECs that have a presence on that other tandem. 




https://www.telcodata.us/search-area-code-exchange-by-ratecenter-state?ratecenter=COMANCHE&state=TX
 




Anyone using Inteliquent\Onvoy should be able to port. That is, unless they 
never built it, don't want more traffic there, etc. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Lewis Bergman"  
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 1:29:29 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it 


Thanks, 
I have found a contact at a Frontier tandem. I doubt that will help as the 
mechanics of porting are a lot different than the process to get it moving. 
Hopefully he can find someone that can give me the exact "what it takes". It 
seems like it might take a CLEC status and a connection to that CLLI. 


On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:45 PM Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




Different tandem switch. 


https://www.telcodata.us/search-switches-by-tandem-clli?cllicode=BWWDTXXA02T 
vs 
https://www.telcodata.us/search-switches-by-tandem-clli?cllicode=SANGTXXA02T 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 






From: "Lewis Bergman" < lewis.berg...@gmail.com > 
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < af@af.afmug.com > 
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 10:56:17 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it 


Let me be clear. Most areas we can port easily from Frontier Like Ballinger and 
Winters. But Some, like Comanche, TX I can't. 


the LATA 961 is the same for both. 
The problems are in NPA 325 NXX 330 & 356 and NPA 254 NXX 879 in this example. 


On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 10:11 AM Ken Hohhof < af...@kwisp.com > wrote: 





Well, that’s true. Generally if you can get new numbers in that CO you can port 
numbers. 

We use VoIP Innovations, they have multiple underlying CLECs. Usually we can 
port numbers to Level3. A couple towns in our service area they aren’t, or 
didn’t used to be, a choice. Sometimes we had to use Bandwidth.com, there were 
a couple others that came and went, more recently Inteliquent has emerged as 
another choice with wide coverage. Inteliquent has a complicated history of 
acquisitions/mergers/spinoffs involving Onvoy, Zayo, Broadvox, Vitelity, I 
don’t know the whole story. 




From: AF < af-boun...@af.afmug.com > On Behalf Of Adam Moffett 
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 9:53 AM 
To: af@af.afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it 

I've had a VoIP carrier tell me they can't port the number because they can't 
serve that LADA or that CO or some such. I never understood why that was an 
issue. 
I don't think it's been an issue recently. 


On 4/16/2020 7:10 AM, Lewis Bergman wrote: 



We have tried to Port Telco numbers off of several frontier CO's without 
success. Has anyone had any luck with these or what it takes to be able to get 
that done? 



On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 9:51 PM Seth Mattinen < se...@rollernet.us > wrote: 


On 4/15/20 5:21 PM, Jason McKemie wrote: 
> So they can do that and then just pick up and continue on as if nothing 
> ever happened? 


Contracts are only held against the little guys. 

-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 






-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 





-- 


Lewis Bergman 
325-439-0533 Cell 
-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 

-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 





-- 


Lewis Bergman 
325-439-0533 Cell 
-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it....

[Mike Hammett]

I pseudo know one of the guys that bought the NW operations. I couldn't get 
much out of him, but I was assuming they were going to overbuild the copper 
with glass. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Dev"  
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 1:47:56 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] And there we have it 

Also, leak documents showing you chronically underfunded builds to pay 
shareholder dividends. Because that’s going to work long term. 


https://stopthecap.com/2020/03/31/frontiers-inner-secrets-revealed-we-underinvested-for-years/
 


They sold off the northwest states, which have since been resold twice. But who 
wants plant that will suck millions to make work at some acceptable level? 
Sounds like a fire sale, you get the parts you want with the ones no one wants. 





On Apr 15, 2020, at 5:08 AM, Mark Radabaugh < m...@amplex.net > wrote: 


https://finance.yahoo.com/news/frontier-communications-files-bankruptcy-protection-030635273.html
 


Dump your debts and your obligations, get more money. Round and round it goes. 


Mark -- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 




-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] South Dakota

[Jaime Solorza]

Yes Vistabeam but he covered huge area

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020, 12:32 PM Carl Peterson 
wrote:

> Isn't Matt Larsen Vistabeam?  I think they are in NE not ND.
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 10:59 AM Jaime Solorza 
> wrote:
>
>> I asked about Matt Larsen..he is a fellow WISP..
>> I am not offering any other comments. But you know where I stand...
>> hasn't changed , will not change.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 9:04 PM Colin Stanners  wrote:
>>
>>> I request to put the OT: header on anything that is not quite directly
>>> WISP-related... As much as I enjoy the good coronavirus and other
>>> conversations that the smart and reasonable people on this list have, I'd
>>> like to keep the non-WISP conversations filterable. Thank you.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 8:08 PM Jaime Solorza 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 It's getting bad in Sioux Falls... doesn't Matt Larsen have service in
 that area?
 --
 AF mailing list
 AF@af.afmug.com
 http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

>>> --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Carl Peterson
>
> *PORT NETWORKS*
>
> 401 E Pratt St, Ste 2553
>
> Baltimore, MD 21202
>
> (410) 637-3707
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Market saturation

[Chris Fabien]

In our rural areas, with FTTH on a road for several years, we usually get
no higher than 75%.

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 12:30 AM Steve Jones 
wrote:

> What percentage of rural customers would you all consider saturated?
>
> I have access to some new datasets and it disturbing. It's good
> disturbing, but unanticipated.
>
> May be bad.
>
> Is there a rural percentage of capture that is considered saturated as a
> standard? 100 percent is what we all want. But there are customers who dont
> want, or simply cannot afford internet access. There has to be some numbers
> out there.
>
> I doubt government numbers count, since government is dumb. Where does a
> simpleton such as myself go to find out what is considered saturated?
>
> Say I touch 1000 households. What is the percentage of capture that
> marketing is no longer recommended? If I have 500 of them, I'd think that's
> pretty good, maybe even saturated between lack of need, want, or ability
> and offset by whatever percentage per terrain would be co sided
> unservicable. I'd assume my midwest flatlands unservicable would be
> different than Johnny paychecks Arkansas hills unservicable.
>
> These numbers have to be somewhere
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] 5.9 open now?

[Sean Heskett]

have to have an STA

FYI every vendor that has anything to do with any kind of 5ghz wireless is
now spam bombing my email since we received our STA.  can say i blame them
but it woke me up to the fact that some people actually do pay attention to
the FCC site and then push out marketing materials.

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:04 PM Steve Jones 
wrote:

> KP just sent out an email saying FCC opened this up for use. did I miss
> something, or are they just playing on the Temporary Use approvals?
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] 5.9 open now?

[Cassidy B. Larson]

I like to blacklist vendors who seem to harvest the email I only use for FCC 
filings/notices. These are the ones that end up sending unsolicited sales 
emails to a FCC-only address. 
I could just be mean though. 

> On Apr 16, 2020, at 3:29 PM, Sean Heskett  wrote:
> 
> have to have an STA
> 
> FYI every vendor that has anything to do with any kind of 5ghz wireless is 
> now spam bombing my email since we received our STA.  can say i blame them 
> but it woke me up to the fact that some people actually do pay attention to 
> the FCC site and then push out marketing materials. 
> 
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:04 PM Steve Jones  > wrote:
> KP just sent out an email saying FCC opened this up for use. did I miss 
> something, or are they just playing on the Temporary Use approvals?
> -- 
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com 
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 
> 
> -- 
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] 5.9 open now?

[Steve Jones]

Kp needs to clean up their ad. It's really misleading, I'd hope that
anybody who sees it is smart enough to make sure their equipment can use us
before they go buying stuff, though most antennas are already good.
Are the vendors requiring proof before they dole out the firmware on these?

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020, 4:53 PM Cassidy B. Larson  wrote:

> I like to blacklist vendors who seem to harvest the email I only use for
> FCC filings/notices. These are the ones that end up sending unsolicited
> sales emails to a FCC-only address.
> I could just be mean though.
>
> On Apr 16, 2020, at 3:29 PM, Sean Heskett  wrote:
>
> have to have an STA
>
> FYI every vendor that has anything to do with any kind of 5ghz wireless is
> now spam bombing my email since we received our STA.  can say i blame them
> but it woke me up to the fact that some people actually do pay attention to
> the FCC site and then push out marketing materials.
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:04 PM Steve Jones 
> wrote:
>
>> KP just sent out an email saying FCC opened this up for use. did I miss
>> something, or are they just playing on the Temporary Use approvals?
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Market saturation

[Brian Webster]

That’s within the range I would expect based on a mature broadband market. They 
say it takes at least 2 years to hit a good market penetration rate.

 

Thank you,

Brian Webster

www.wirelessmapping.com

 

From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chris Fabien
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 5:19 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Market saturation

 

In our rural areas, with FTTH on a road for several years, we usually get no 
higher than 75%.

 

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 12:30 AM Steve Jones  wrote:

What percentage of rural customers would you all consider saturated?

 

I have access to some new datasets and it disturbing. It's good disturbing, but 
unanticipated. 

 

May be bad.

 

Is there a rural percentage of capture that is considered saturated as a 
standard? 100 percent is what we all want. But there are customers who dont 
want, or simply cannot afford internet access. There has to be some numbers out 
there.

 

I doubt government numbers count, since government is dumb. Where does a 
simpleton such as myself go to find out what is considered saturated?

 

Say I touch 1000 households. What is the percentage of capture that marketing 
is no longer recommended? If I have 500 of them, I'd think that's pretty good, 
maybe even saturated between lack of need, want, or ability and offset by 
whatever percentage per terrain would be co sided unservicable. I'd assume my 
midwest flatlands unservicable would be different than Johnny paychecks 
Arkansas hills unservicable.

 

These numbers have to be somewhere

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] 5.9 open now?

[Ken Hohhof]

I thought Cambium was a license key not different firmware.  Not sure about 
Ubiquiti.

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Steve Jones
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 5:51 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 5.9 open now?

 

Kp needs to clean up their ad. It's really misleading, I'd hope that anybody 
who sees it is smart enough to make sure their equipment can use us before they 
go buying stuff, though most antennas are already good. 

Are the vendors requiring proof before they dole out the firmware on these?

 

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020, 4:53 PM Cassidy B. Larson mailto:c...@infowest.com> > wrote:

I like to blacklist vendors who seem to harvest the email I only use for FCC 
filings/notices. These are the ones that end up sending unsolicited sales 
emails to a FCC-only address. 

I could just be mean though. 

 

On Apr 16, 2020, at 3:29 PM, Sean Heskett mailto:af...@zirkel.us> > wrote:

 

have to have an STA

 

FYI every vendor that has anything to do with any kind of 5ghz wireless is now 
spam bombing my email since we received our STA.  can say i blame them but it 
woke me up to the fact that some people actually do pay attention to the FCC 
site and then push out marketing materials. 

 

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:04 PM Steve Jones mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> > wrote:

KP just sent out an email saying FCC opened this up for use. did I miss 
something, or are they just playing on the Temporary Use approvals?

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com  
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com  
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

 

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com  
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] 5.9 open now?

[Sean Heskett]

Different firmware for canopy 450

Not sure about ePMP

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 5:17 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:

> I thought Cambium was a license key not different firmware.  Not sure
> about Ubiquiti.
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 16, 2020 5:51 PM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 5.9 open now?
>
>
>
> Kp needs to clean up their ad. It's really misleading, I'd hope that
> anybody who sees it is smart enough to make sure their equipment can use us
> before they go buying stuff, though most antennas are already good.
>
> Are the vendors requiring proof before they dole out the firmware on these?
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020, 4:53 PM Cassidy B. Larson  wrote:
>
> I like to blacklist vendors who seem to harvest the email I only use for
> FCC filings/notices. These are the ones that end up sending unsolicited
> sales emails to a FCC-only address.
>
> I could just be mean though.
>
>
>
> On Apr 16, 2020, at 3:29 PM, Sean Heskett  wrote:
>
>
>
> have to have an STA
>
>
>
> FYI every vendor that has anything to do with any kind of 5ghz wireless is
> now spam bombing my email since we received our STA.  can say i blame them
> but it woke me up to the fact that some people actually do pay attention to
> the FCC site and then push out marketing materials.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:04 PM Steve Jones 
> wrote:
>
> KP just sent out an email saying FCC opened this up for use. did I miss
> something, or are they just playing on the Temporary Use approvals?
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] 5.9 open now?

[Josh Baird]

DIfferent firmware for ePMP as well.

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 7:21 PM Sean Heskett  wrote:

> Different firmware for canopy 450
>
> Not sure about ePMP
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 5:17 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>
>> I thought Cambium was a license key not different firmware.  Not sure
>> about Ubiquiti.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 16, 2020 5:51 PM
>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 5.9 open now?
>>
>>
>>
>> Kp needs to clean up their ad. It's really misleading, I'd hope that
>> anybody who sees it is smart enough to make sure their equipment can use us
>> before they go buying stuff, though most antennas are already good.
>>
>> Are the vendors requiring proof before they dole out the firmware on
>> these?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020, 4:53 PM Cassidy B. Larson  wrote:
>>
>> I like to blacklist vendors who seem to harvest the email I only use for
>> FCC filings/notices. These are the ones that end up sending unsolicited
>> sales emails to a FCC-only address.
>>
>> I could just be mean though.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 16, 2020, at 3:29 PM, Sean Heskett  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> have to have an STA
>>
>>
>>
>> FYI every vendor that has anything to do with any kind of 5ghz wireless
>> is now spam bombing my email since we received our STA.  can say i blame
>> them but it woke me up to the fact that some people actually do pay
>> attention to the FCC site and then push out marketing materials.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:04 PM Steve Jones 
>> wrote:
>>
>> KP just sent out an email saying FCC opened this up for use. did I miss
>> something, or are they just playing on the Temporary Use approvals?
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

[AFMUG] OT - is meat the next toilet paper?

[Ken Hohhof]

I don't usually shop for groceries at Walmart, but made a quick stop today
because it's the only place that carries the Lloyd's BBQ Beef that we like
for making BBQ beef sandwiches.

 

Anyway, I noticed they were pretty much sold out of steaks except for a few
Prime strip steaks.  Nice marbling but something like $15/pound.  I didn't
even know Walmart sold Prime beef.  Reading this article, I'm wondering if
it they are repurposing meat that would ordinarily go to restaurants:

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/supermarkets-adjust-meat-sections-
as-coronavirus-cuts-supply/ar-BB12Jkfz

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Market saturation

[Brian Webster]

Data from 2017 by state.

 

https://www.statista.com/chart/10600/us-home-broadband-penetration-by-state/

 

 

Thank you,

Brian Webster

www.wirelessmapping.com

 

From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Brian Webster
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 7:04 PM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group'
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Market saturation

 

That’s within the range I would expect based on a mature broadband market. They 
say it takes at least 2 years to hit a good market penetration rate.

 

Thank you,

Brian Webster

www.wirelessmapping.com

 

From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chris Fabien
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 5:19 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Market saturation

 

In our rural areas, with FTTH on a road for several years, we usually get no 
higher than 75%.

 

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 12:30 AM Steve Jones  wrote:

What percentage of rural customers would you all consider saturated?

 

I have access to some new datasets and it disturbing. It's good disturbing, but 
unanticipated. 

 

May be bad.

 

Is there a rural percentage of capture that is considered saturated as a 
standard? 100 percent is what we all want. But there are customers who dont 
want, or simply cannot afford internet access. There has to be some numbers out 
there.

 

I doubt government numbers count, since government is dumb. Where does a 
simpleton such as myself go to find out what is considered saturated?

 

Say I touch 1000 households. What is the percentage of capture that marketing 
is no longer recommended? If I have 500 of them, I'd think that's pretty good, 
maybe even saturated between lack of need, want, or ability and offset by 
whatever percentage per terrain would be co sided unservicable. I'd assume my 
midwest flatlands unservicable would be different than Johnny paychecks 
Arkansas hills unservicable.

 

These numbers have to be somewhere

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

[AFMUG] OT dinner

[chuck]

I put some chunks of hickory in the bottom of a deep cast iron pan.  Put a 
perforated rack over it, then cooked chicken breast then another frying pan 
inverted over the whole mess.  

Fire on high for about 15 minutes.  Yummy smoked chicken for tacos.  Smoke 
alarms still have not gone off.  My wife thought I was crazy when I started it. 
 She liked the outcome.  Our exhaust fan does not move anywhere enough air to 
do this very often.  -- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT dinner

[Steve Jones]

Indoor smoking, I like it

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020, 7:49 PM  wrote:

> I put some chunks of hickory in the bottom of a deep cast iron pan.  Put a
> perforated rack over it, then cooked chicken breast then another frying pan
> inverted over the whole mess.
>
> Fire on high for about 15 minutes.  Yummy smoked chicken for tacos.  Smoke
> alarms still have not gone off.  My wife thought I was crazy when I started
> it.  She liked the outcome.  Our exhaust fan does not move anywhere enough
> air to do this very often.
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT dinner

[Ken Hohhof]

Chuck, I thought of you and your Vienna sausages when I read this article.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/article/expiration-dates-coronavirus.html

 

“So long as there is no outward sign of spoilage (such as bulging or rust), or 
visible spoilage when you open it (such as cloudiness, moldiness or rotten 
smells), your canned fruits, vegetables and meats will remain as delicious and 
palatable as the day you bought them for years (or in the case of, say, Vienna 
sausages at least as good as they were to begin with)."

 

I think they’re saying Vienna sausages can’t go bad, because they were never 
really good to begin with.

 

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Steve Jones
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 8:30 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT dinner

 

Indoor smoking, I like it

 

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020, 7:49 PM mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com> > wrote:

I put some chunks of hickory in the bottom of a deep cast iron pan.  Put a 
perforated rack over it, then cooked chicken breast then another frying pan 
inverted over the whole mess.  

 

Fire on high for about 15 minutes.  Yummy smoked chicken for tacos.  Smoke 
alarms still have not gone off.  My wife thought I was crazy when I started it. 
 She liked the outcome.  Our exhaust fan does not move anywhere enough air to 
do this very often.  

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com  
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com