Argh, "It wouldn't surprise me"... On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Jason McKemie < [email protected]> wrote:
> I'd be curious to see how this actually worked at an end user's location. > I wouldn't surprise me if these guys did some sort of trickery or > prioritization for demonstration purposes... > > On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 7:18 AM, Mike Hammett <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I wouldn't have thought it would, but it kinda supports my point that if >> you can control the other metrics, latency can go much higher on VoIP calls. >> >> >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> >> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> >> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From: *"Jeremy" <[email protected]> >> *To: *[email protected] >> *Sent: *Saturday, February 14, 2015 9:51:28 PM >> >> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Trango Altum AC PTP test results >> >> I talked to the Exede guys at AF. After running a speedtest with 650+ms >> of latency they told me that their VoIP works perfectly. I called BS and >> they had it hooked up and said feel free. I called my wife and had about a >> five minute conversation. I have noticed worse lag on the AT&T VoIP >> service locally (like where you are constantly talking over the top of each >> other). It had two very small, almost unnoticeable, points where it >> 'chopped out' a bit. I was completely blown away. Apparently VoIP can >> work fine with 700ms latency. I never would have believed it if I hadn't >> seen it myself. >> >> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Bill Prince <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Well if there is a mention of latency (and whether there is or isn't) >>> will speak volumes about the influence (or lack thereof) of the satellite >>> broadband industry. And if there is a specification for latency (and I've >>> never understood why there isn't), then it should surely be < 500 ms, and >>> more reasonably < 100 ms, or possibly < 200 ms. I think the tolerance >>> breakpoint for any VoIP-type service is in the area of 200-250 ms. >>> >>> >>> Exede claims to support some type of VoIP service these days. Has >>> anyone had the opportunity to see how this actually works (or doesn't)? >>> >>> >>> bp >>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> >>> >>> >>> On 2/14/2015 9:34 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: >>> >>> I guess we really don’t know what latency, usage limit or price is >>> acceptable because the FCC hasn’t told us yet. The Report & Order >>> resulting from Proceeding 14-126 didn’t set benchmarks for them. Maybe >>> Mike says 100 ms because that’s the limit for CAF II funding. Round trip >>> to the Internet exchange point. >>> >>> >>> *From:* Mike Hammett <[email protected]> >>> *Sent:* Saturday, February 14, 2015 11:11 AM >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Trango Altum AC PTP test results >>> >>> 100 ms end to end. That user device to the far server. If you're like >>> Josh in Alaska, there's 30 - 40 ms before you even get anywhere in the >>> cables down to Seattle. The Internet seems to work okay for him. >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- >>> Mike Hammett >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>> http://www.ics-il.com >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From: *"Ken Hohhof" <[email protected]> <[email protected]> >>> *To: *[email protected] >>> *Sent: *Saturday, February 14, 2015 10:12:19 AM >>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Trango Altum AC PTP test results >>> >>> I think Kurt’s point, which I agree with, is this is a PTP product, >>> and backhaul latencies get multiplied by the number of hops, while you only >>> have one “last mile”. >>> >>> You can perhaps use licensed or other FDD radios for the first few hops >>> and go cheap with the last few hops at the farthest reaches of your >>> network, especially if there is a plan to upgrade these in the future. >>> That doesn’t work so good though if you have a backhaul ring. >>> >>> I agree with Rory that 10 ms isn’t a bid deal. I don’t agree with Mike >>> that 100 ms doesn’t really matter. The problem is that a whole bunch of 10 >>> ms links adds up to 100 ms. >>> >>> Also I worry that some CDN’s use fancy new TCP stacks that back off >>> based on latency rather than packet loss as an indicator of congestion. I >>> think they are wrong to assume that everyone uses infinite buffers for >>> queuing rather than packet drop, but they don’t ask my opinion. >>> >>> >>> *From:* John Woodfield <[email protected]> >>> *Sent:* Saturday, February 14, 2015 10:01 AM >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Trango Altum AC PTP test results >>> >>> >>> Not to mention the UBNT gear under load has at least that much latency... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> John Woodfield Delmarva WiFi http://www.delmarvawifi.com cell (410) >>> 708-1937 >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: "Rory Conaway" <[email protected]> <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 10:10am >>> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Trango Altum AC PTP test results >>> >>> ADSL latencies used to be over 40ms or more. Cable latencies are >>> about 10ms from my router to the first hop so 10ms isn’t that big a deal. >>> I agree with you Mike. >>> >>> >>> >>> Rory >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On >>> Behalf Of *Mike Hammett >>> *Sent:* Saturday, February 14, 2015 7:45 AM >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Trango Altum AC PTP test results >>> >>> >>> >>> A lot of WISPs get hardons over low latencies, but as long as end-to-end >>> is under 100 ms or so, it doesn't really matter. >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- >>> Mike Hammett >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>> http://www.ics-il.com >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> *From: *"Ken Hohhof" <[email protected]> >>> *To: *[email protected] >>> *Sent: *Saturday, February 14, 2015 8:39:27 AM >>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Trango Altum AC PTP test results >>> >>> I wonder if WISPs are going to be part of a trend toward higher >>> latencies. >>> >>> >>> >>> It used to be customers mainly did web browsing and really noticed >>> whether the websites snapped up immediately or lagged. Now everyone is >>> streaming, streaming, streaming. And websites are more worried about >>> tracking cookies and on-the-fly ad auctions for your eyeballs than >>> responsiveness. Plus people use mobile devices and are accustomed to the >>> higher last mile latency of 3G and LTE. >>> >>> >>> >>> Still it’s a little disappointing to backslide on latency because >>> customers don’t value quick response like they used to. They just want >>> mass quantities of data to watch video, as cheap as possible. >>> >>> >>> >>> I guess gamers still care about ping times. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Erich Kaiser <[email protected]> >>> >>> *Sent:* Saturday, February 14, 2015 7:44 AM >>> >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> >>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Trango Altum AC PTP test results >>> >>> >>> >>> I would assume AF5x is going to be the same issue if you are using GPS? >>> >>> >>> >>> Erich Kaiser >>> >>> North Central Tower Consulting >>> >>> [email protected] >>> >>> Office: 630-621-4804 >>> >>> Cell: 630-777-9291 >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Kurt Fankhauser <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I can't afford 8-12ms of latency 7 hops out... Time for some Full Duplex >>> links I suppose.... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Kurt Fankhauser >>> >>> Wavelinc Communications >>> >>> P.O. Box 126 >>> >>> Bucyrus, OH 44820 >>> >>> http://www.wavelinc.com >>> >>> tel. 419-562-6405 >>> >>> fax. 419-617-0110 >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:43 PM, Erich Kaiser < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> The Mimosa seems awesome so far (Except for lack of SNMP support, which >>> is coming in April). If you have GPS sync it seems to run between >>> 8ms-12ms. >>> >>> >>> >>> Erich Kaiser >>> >>> North Central Tower Consulting >>> >>> [email protected] >>> >>> Office: 630-621-4804 >>> >>> Cell: 630-777-9291 >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Kurt Fankhauser <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I was hoping to replace a Ligowave link I have that's running on 40mhz. >>> I don't feel like burning up a whole 80mhz of spectrum through, so I think >>> I'll be buying a PTP-650 especially since I need DFS freq's. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Kurt Fankhauser >>> >>> Wavelinc Communications >>> >>> P.O. Box 126 >>> >>> Bucyrus, OH 44820 >>> >>> http://www.wavelinc.com >>> >>> tel. 419-562-6405 >>> >>> fax. 419-617-0110 >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:19 PM, Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I see that they sell them on the 'Trango store' now too. Pretty sweet. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Yeah, that is what I was told at Animal Farm also. It seems like doing >>> something specific or something in the wrong order makes them not work. >>> Next time I guess I'll have to follow directions, LOL. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 8:11 PM, Kurt Fankhauser <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Jeremy, >>> >>> >>> >>> I ended up having to default the units and then follow the quick start >>> guide to the T. There must be some bugs to work out in the firmware cause >>> when I ordered them the guy told me to follow the quick start to the T. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Kurt Fankhauser >>> >>> Wavelinc Communications >>> >>> P.O. Box 126 >>> >>> Bucyrus, OH 44820 >>> >>> http://www.wavelinc.com >>> >>> tel. 419-562-6405 >>> >>> fax. 419-617-0110 >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:59 PM, Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I also didn't follow the guide the first time. On subsequent attempts I >>> did, but it seemed like something was wrong with them at that point. >>> Anyway, it's nice to see someone having some success. The platform looks >>> like it has a lot of potential. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 7:50 PM, Kurt Fankhauser <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Jeremy, >>> >>> >>> >>> Yes I had issues but I didn't call support. It took me almost 2 hours to >>> get the two radios to see each other but I finally got them too. I wasn't >>> following the PTP quick start guide like I was told to. When I initially >>> configured the radios I disabled the 2nd port (called WAN) in the manual. >>> For some reason they would not link until I turned it back on. Even though >>> I wasn't using the WAN port. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Kurt Fankhauser >>> >>> Wavelinc Communications >>> >>> P.O. Box 126 >>> >>> Bucyrus, OH 44820 >>> >>> http://www.wavelinc.com >>> >>> tel. 419-562-6405 >>> >>> fax. 419-617-0110 >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I had some issues with the configuration and couldn't ever get them to >>> pass traffic. Did you run into any issues that required support? >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Rory Conaway <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I saw that too when I was reviewing the brochure this morning. I was >>> just assuming they were considering this a long range product. Kurt, do >>> you mind telling me what those radios cost? >>> >>> >>> >>> Rory >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Kurt Fankhauser >>> *Sent:* Friday, February 13, 2015 7:36 PM >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Trango Altum AC PTP test results >>> >>> >>> >>> Just got done testing a Trango Altum AC PTP link on the bench. Units are >>> 25db integrated panels. Did a 40mhz channel test and 80mhz via UDP. I tried >>> a TCP test between two RB2011's and best I seen was 175-180'ish and that >>> was with both 40 and 80mhz channels. CPU seemed to be maxing out on the >>> 2011's. >>> >>> >>> >>> Has UNI-1 bands and ISM bands. I was hoping it had the middle DFS bands >>> but it doesn't :( >>> >>> >>> >>> Kurt Fankhauser >>> >>> Wavelinc Communications >>> >>> P.O. Box 126 >>> >>> Bucyrus, OH 44820 >>> >>> http://www.wavelinc.com >>> >>> tel. 419-562-6405 >>> >>> fax. 419-617-0110 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
