Re: [WISPA] The nanostation thing....

[Jon Langeler]

I can't say whether I'm interested in your ideas yet or not. But unless you 
wanted to develop syncronization or some specific function of a centralized 
server for the base stations I don't see the point of adding  the additional 
complexity. Canopy for example has synconization without the need for 
additional 'controllers'. 

Mikrotik's RB433AH have a *LOT* of extra cpu(from our expereinces) and they're 
only $150ea! Have you thought of using 802.11n/MIMO on the downstream with dual 
polarized setup? It's too bad we didn't have an FDD spectrum allocated to WISPs 
where there were channels dedicated to upstream and downstream. Almost 
exlusively we use FDD for PTPs as opposed to HDX for a handfull of reasons. 
Similar benefits exist in PTMP situations...

Jon Langeler
Michwave Tech.


Doug Ratcliffe wrote:
> But the control point would be at the tower, not remote.  I know some WISPs 
> operate in remote areas, but this is more for a high density urban 
> deployment, similar to what you would use AirSpan or Alvarion for.
>
> The reasoning behind the FDD style deployment would be to help compete 
> against 10Mbps+ cable connections.  Right now a 6 AP deployment usually has 
> about 10Mbps for each AP (Canopy, Trango).  My thought is to transmit-sync a 
> 50Mbps (40mhz turbo-mode) signal, with the vision that you could give fiber 
> speeds wirelessly.  Or, with 50Mbps of bandwidth (per sector) it would give 
> you the ability to serve thousands of subscribers in a high density 
> deployment.  The other though would be to be able to multicast MPEG4 video 
> over it.
>
> My vision is to keep us being able to compete with cable & DSL for years to 
> come without spending a fortune.  If an open source system could interface 
> with 6 NS5's ($600) plus a rackmount PC ($1000), that's a Wimax-style QOS 
> deployment for less than the price of a single Canopy unit.  The other 
> thought is that single NS5's are 802.11 and have no ability to transmit sync 
> (i.e. share frequencies) like other systems do.  By giving it the ability to 
> do that, you have an inexpensive hardware platform with $1 per AP 
> features.
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Charles Wyble" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 1:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] The nanostation thing
>
>
>   
>> Doug Ratcliffe wrote:
>> 
>>> My thoughts on this I've even mentied on the Mikrotik forum a while ago 
>>> were
>>> to have a 2 part system:
>>>
>>> An outdoor wireless unit (like a Nanostation) that does nothing but act 
>>> as a
>>> raw wireless interface, that connects to a master station inside the 
>>> tower
>>> control room that is the "intelligence", like Wimax-style QoS, polling, 
>>> VOIP
>>> control etc.
>>>   
>> Isn't that how the Cisco solution works with a Wireless Lan Controller?
>> This works great in campus
>> environments which usually have a 100mbps or gigabit wired backbone, but
>> not necessarily in
>> WISP type deployments.
>>
>> In the case of a WISP you may have an exclusive wireless network
>> (wireless link between CPE and aggregation point with WiMAX or other RF
>> back haul ).
>> or a hybrid model (wireless link between CPE and aggregation point with
>> DSL/T1 back haul).  Having the additional network infrastructure
>> overhead on networks carrying customer traffic may or may not saturate
>> your pipe.
>>
>> If you have the money to build separate control and data paths great!
>>
>> 
>>>  The outside part could be connected via network switch to
>>> allow a failover master control unit.
>>>
>>>   
>> Certainly. You want a reliable core.
>> 
>>> I would think the inside part would be a rack mountable Intel/AMD server 
>>> or
>>> even an inexpensive workstation (since even a $250 computer has 20x the 
>>> CPU
>>> power of a Nanostation).
>>>   
>> Certainly.  Perhaps something like a mini ITX server.
>>
>> 
>>>   It would also allow the ability to sync AP
>>> broadcast, and maybe even include GPS sync capability.  That would allow 
>>> the
>>> outdoor unit to be minimal in flash and CPU speed but still allow high 
>>> speed
>>> communications.  Taken further into a 6x60 deg NS2/NS5 AP tower, combine
>>> that with mesh for tower to tower communications and have a Skypilot 
>>> system
>>> on steroids (tower to tower routing with no hop loss).
>>>
>>>   
>> Interesting. Didn't quite follow all that, but I will research it.
>>
>>
>> 
>>> I had taken the idea to a second level having a FDD-style system with a
>>> separate transmit unit and recieve unit outdoors where the CPE would 
>>> simply
>>> switch frequencies or polarities to recieve their packets, and switch 
>>> again
>>> to transmit.
>>>   
>> Seems like a massive amount of overhead. What would the reasons and
>> advantages/disadvantages for such an approach be?
>>
>> 
>>> That could allow for a 40mhz-turbo mode broadcast (GPS synced) with 5mhz
>>> channel upstream.  My thought

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Gino Villarini]

Maybe you got confused with the OSwave firmware

 

Gino A. Villarini 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. 
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145 



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 12:11 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

 

Hi,

I would have bet any amount of money that I saw "polling" as an option
in the AirOS stuff... but now that I am looking for it, I can't seem to
find it. :(

Travis


Randy Cosby wrote: 

Where is the polling you refer to?  Is that in the beta firmware or 
something? I haven't noticed it.
 
Randy
 
 
Travis Johnson wrote:
  

The AirOS that comes on the Nanostations also has polling
the 
issue is having a product that is compatible and has the
features that 
people are already used to. Having Mikrotik on the Nano's would
open 
up a whole new world.
 
Travis
 
Gino Villarini wrote:


Well you all have the option to flash the nanostations
with oswave firmware.  The oswave has polling...
 
gino
 
-Original Message-
From: Matt Larsen - Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:21 AM
To: WISPA General List 
 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
 
Travis Johnson wrote:
  
  

Matt,
 
I agree with almost everything you said...
except the polling part. 
Having a robust, efficient polling system is the
best thing available 
for outdoor wireless. That is one of the main
reasons we are now using 
Mikrotik is because of their Nstreme and polling
system. We are 
finding now it's not the same quality as
Trango's polling, but it does 
work.
 
How else do you keep a single customer from
taking down an entire AP 
with a large upload (usually from an infection,
virus, worm, etc.)? I 
have tested this over and over and over, and
every time I come back to 
the same conclusion... you have to have a
polling system to control 
the upload, otherwise the customer with the best
signal dominates the 
AP (on the upload side).
 
Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with
two connected clients 
without polling. Start an upload on one client
and then try doing a 
download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My
tests show the 
download and/or ping to be very unreliable and
very sporadic. Now, if 
you turn polling on and do the same test,
everything works fine while 
the upload is running and the 2nd client can't
even tell there is an 
upload running.



Um, bandwidth limiting?   As long as the AP has the
upload speed coming 
from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the
total capacity 
of the pipe, its not a problem.   I'm doing the test
right now, and I 
have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter. 
 
  
  

What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a
Nanostation running 
Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that
would be the killer 
CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now
today. :)
 



Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS.  
 
Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com
  
  

Travis
Microserv
 
Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:



Hi Travis,
 
I'm with you - the Nanostations are a
pretty amazing product.   I've 
been deploying Nanostations on 10mhz
channels in 2.4 and 5ghz with 
StarOS access points and the
performance/interference resistance is 
pretty amazing at ANY price poi

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Travis Johnson]

Hi,

I would have bet any amount of money that I saw "polling" as an option
in the AirOS stuff... but now that I am looking for it, I can't seem to
find it. :(

Travis


Randy Cosby wrote:

  Where is the polling you refer to?  Is that in the beta firmware or 
something? I haven't noticed it.

Randy


Travis Johnson wrote:
  
  
The AirOS that comes on the Nanostations also has polling the 
issue is having a product that is compatible and has the features that 
people are already used to. Having Mikrotik on the Nano's would open 
up a whole new world.

Travis

Gino Villarini wrote:


  Well you all have the option to flash the nanostations with oswave firmware.  The oswave has polling...

gino

-Original Message-
From: Matt Larsen - Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:21 AM
To: WISPA General List 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

Travis Johnson wrote:
  
  
  
Matt,

I agree with almost everything you said... except the polling part. 
Having a robust, efficient polling system is the best thing available 
for outdoor wireless. That is one of the main reasons we are now using 
Mikrotik is because of their Nstreme and polling system. We are 
finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does 
work.

How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP 
with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I 
have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to 
the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control 
the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the 
AP (on the upload side).

Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients 
without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a 
download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the 
download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if 
you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while 
the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an 
upload running.


  
  Um, bandwidth limiting?   As long as the AP has the upload speed coming 
from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity 
of the pipe, its not a problem.   I'm doing the test right now, and I 
have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter. 

  
  
  
What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running 
Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer 
CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :)



  
  Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS.  

Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com
  
  
  
Travis
Microserv

Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:



  Hi Travis,

I'm with you - the Nanostations are a pretty amazing product.   I've 
been deploying Nanostations on 10mhz channels in 2.4 and 5ghz with 
StarOS access points and the performance/interference resistance is 
pretty amazing at ANY price point.   I could say the same thing for the 
newer Tranzeo CPE units as well, but they can't match up with the 
Ubiquity price point just yet.

It is neat to see a product with many of the Canopy advantages (rich 
features, small footprint, inexpensive to produce, good interference 
resistance) that is compatible with the 802.11a/b/g standards and thus 
able to take advantage of the very innovative Mikrotik and StarOS 
platforms. 

I'm curious to see if someone comes up with a good reflector for the 
Nanostation radios.  That would enable the use of the adaptive antenna 
mode, and since StarOS has the ability to switch connectors on the fly - 
and potentially polarity if hooked up to a dual-pol antenna - you would 
end up with a standards based product that would have nearly every 
feature that the Trangos had that made them special (noise threshold at 
the AP, software switchable polarity, site survey, etc).   No polling, 
but that is one of the most overrated features anyway.

Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com


Travis Johnson wrote:
  
  
  
  
Hi,

I would agree... I think there is an opportunity as well. There are some 
new products in the market recently (Ubiquiti Nanostation) that could 
shake things up a little. Getting an FCC product with PoE and a Ubiquiti 
quality radio for $79 is pretty amazing (I will be testing some this 
coming week). It really makes you wonder how much money some of these 
companies can really have into a radio system (Trango, Canopy, etc.) 
when Ubiquiti can sell a brand new product for $79 MSRP. Granted there 
are not a lot of "bells and whistles", but honestly most of the WISP's 
out there don't need that. If you can buy a radio for $79, you can put 
whatever you need behind it (Cisco, Mikrotik, etc.) and still be less 
than $200 for a nice CPE.

I think Trango's first mistake was the "mesh" game they played for a 
year. Th

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Mike Hammett]

If you needed virtualization of some type, you could install it as the host 
OS, then install your Mikrotik or Asterisk or...  on top.

I guess I meant things that we can't already get somewhere else.  Mikrotik 
themselves has to do a lot of things, but we can do Xen on our own.


--
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: "Butch Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 10:12 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations


> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Mike Hammett wrote:
>
>>Right, but my point was that Mikrotik doesn't need to be worrying
>>about virtualization.  They need to put some more work into QA and
>>USEFUL feature expansion, like into 802.11 and 802.16, not Xen.
>
> You don't think XEN can be useful?  I have it in testing now on 2
> unique types of deployments that will save me about $340 PER
> location (possibly over 2000 locations)...I find it pretty
> useful...if it works, that is.
>
> -- 
> 
> *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation *
> *Network Engineering *MikroTik RouterOS*
> *573-276-2879 *ImageStream   *
> *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE   *
> *http://blog.butchevans.com/*Wired or wireless Networks*
> *Mikrotik Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer*
> 
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field

[3-dB Networks]

I think I mentioned last week that we were going to be doing testing with
Aperto gear.  We were so impressed that we are finishing up the paperwork to
become a VAR for them (not sure if any of the other VAR's on the list are).

I've been a skeptic of 3.65 WiMAX since the day it was mentioned too me...
basically the too good to be true type thing.  Everyone else in the company
thought really the same thing.  Field testing, while not nearly as extensive
as others have done on this list (we are limited by the "tower location"
i.e. the roof of the building, we had to play with) but 5 miles near line of
sight at full modulation was no problem.  We were even getting 6Mb or so
through our metal roof, with the sector pointing 180 degrees away.  When I
try that with a 5.2GHz Canopy SM we are lucky if it connects!

We were sold on Aperto by CPE cost, the EMS management system, and the
company background (Aperto is one of the big players on the international
market).  I'd be happy to shoot a quote to anyone that is interested.

I'll be attending the technical training along with Dave Kennedy on Aug 6th
to really grasp what this equipment can do.  So far I have been really
impressed (but the Tranzeo looking CPE case has to go, which they are
promising me is on its way out)

Anyways my 2 cents... another critic convinced

Daniel White
3-dB Networks

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John McDowell
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 8:30 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field

Depends, sub $10,000. Boun Senekham at CTI can help you with a quote if
you're interested: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 8:38 PM, Brian Rohrbacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> What about APs?
>
> John McDowell wrote:
>
> I hear RedMax is coming down in price on CPEs when you buy a pallet of 72.
> Sub $400.
>
> Mike, I'm interested to know what Alvarion is pricing the 3.65 gear now
that
> it is available. Have they come down at all?
>
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Brian Rohrbacher
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> So, how much does this stuff cost?
>
> Brian
>
>
> John McDowell wrote:
>
> I believe it.
>
> Today we had a 1.5 mile shot through dense trees using Redline Redmax
3.65.
> Customer was getting close to 500k upload. Signal held steady at 88db on a
> 1-story house.
>
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Mike Cowan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Many of you have known me for years, some wish they didn't :-).  I am
> the doubting Thomas type and have to test myself before I recommend
> products to a client.  Lets just say that Thomas was satisfied.  Now
> the clients are echoing the same and that is what drives my wagon.
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Mike
>
>
> At 08:52 PM 7/21/2008, you wrote:
>
>
> Same here, I thought it was all marketing hype, if it works like the
> poster mentioned, we will need to consider moving up our timetable for
> evaluating wimax, 10k a basestation suddenly isn't that bad with the
> performance described.
>
> Regards
> Michael Baird
>
>
>
> Now this is a 180* of what others have told me, even others offering
> traditional, D, and E products.
>
>
> --
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutionshttp://www.ics-il.com
>
>  Mike Cowan
> Wireless Connections
> A Division of ACC
> 166 Milan Ave
> Norwalk, OH  44857
> 419-660-6100
> 419-706-7348 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>


> WISPA Wants You! Join today!http://signup.wispa.org/
>
>


>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
>
>
>


> WISPA Wants You! Join today!http://signup.wispa.org/
>
>


>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
>
>
>


> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
>
>


>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>



-- 
John M. McDowell
Boonlink Communications
307 Grand Ave NW
Fort Payne, AL 35967
256.844.9932
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.boonlink.com






This message contains information

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Butch Evans]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Mike Hammett wrote:

>Right, but my point was that Mikrotik doesn't need to be worrying 
>about virtualization.  They need to put some more work into QA and 
>USEFUL feature expansion, like into 802.11 and 802.16, not Xen.

You don't think XEN can be useful?  I have it in testing now on 2 
unique types of deployments that will save me about $340 PER 
location (possibly over 2000 locations)...I find it pretty 
useful...if it works, that is.

-- 

*Butch Evans*Professional Network Consultation *
*Network Engineering*MikroTik RouterOS *
*573-276-2879   *ImageStream   *
*http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE   *
*http://blog.butchevans.com/*Wired or wireless Networks*
*Mikrotik Certified Consultant  *Professional Technical Trainer*




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.

[Marlon K. Schafer]

Yeah.  And out here Century Tel gets $60 to $109 per month (depending on who 
you talk to) per pots line in USF funds.  Gee, I wonder why they require a 
pots line for DSL  And they can sell DSL at retail rates at or below the 
wholesale rates.

Man, what I could do with an extra $100 per month per sub!
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: "Chuck McCown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 8:22 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.


> DSL is mostly gravy.  It gets shared through NECA in many cases, but it
> doesn't so much to support the local loop.
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Marlon K. Schafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 8:54 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.
>
>
>> Well, not quite.
>>
>> A tarrifed pots line pays for the wire in the ground and the upkeep.
>>
>> DSL is gravy.
>>
>> Or did I miss something?
>> marlon
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "Chuck McCown - 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 7:53 AM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.
>>
>>
>>> Not true.  Not true at all.  Cable Companies are not rate of return
>>> regulated.  Every dollar they spend is below the line.  The ILECS are
>>> strictly regulated as to what can be spent above the line.  Tarrifed
>>> rates
>>> ONLY support tarrifed services.
>>> - Original Message - 
>>> From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 11:52 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.
>>>
>>>
 Why not?

 Isn't that kinda what Cable Cos and ILECs Do?

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


 - Original Message - 
 From: "Chuck McCown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 To: "WISPA General List" 
 Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 2:37 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.


> The power company wants to take rate payer money and build a broadband
> network that will contact each meter for the purpose of managing
> energy.
> It
> will also supply broadband to the homeowner if they want.  This should
> not
> be allowed.
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "David E. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.
>
>
>> Chuck McCown wrote:
>>> Time to speak up.
>>
>> Anyone care to translate this for those among us who don't speak
>> lawyerese, and who don't live/work in Indiana?
>>
>> David Smith
>> MVN.net
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>> 
>>>
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Butch Evans]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Jim Patient wrote:

>Spell checker must have got Dennis.  He meant Virtualization (Zen).

Got Jim, too...he meant Virtualization (Xen).  :-)

-- 

*Butch Evans*Professional Network Consultation *
*Network Engineering*MikroTik RouterOS *
*573-276-2879   *ImageStream   *
*http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE   *
*http://blog.butchevans.com/*Wired or wireless Networks*
*Mikrotik Certified Consultant  *Professional Technical Trainer*




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Butch Evans]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Mike Hammett wrote:

>They just copied someone else's card, though I forget now who. 
>It's in the FCC docs.

IIRC, the MT cards are relabled Compex cards.

-- 

*Butch Evans*Professional Network Consultation *
*Network Engineering*MikroTik RouterOS *
*573-276-2879   *ImageStream   *
*http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE   *
*http://blog.butchevans.com/*Wired or wireless Networks*
*Mikrotik Certified Consultant  *Professional Technical Trainer*




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Butch Evans]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Scottie Arnett wrote:

>DD-WRT and OpenWRT pretty much already do this for quite a few 
>chipsets. They are not near the software as Mikrotik or StarOS 
>is...but, if Mikrotikl drops support for x86, I would not be 
>suprised if they or a new project starts very quickly to serve that 
>need.

MT does not appear to be dropping X86 support...I see more and more 
features specifically built for X86.

-- 

*Butch Evans*Professional Network Consultation *
*Network Engineering*MikroTik RouterOS *
*573-276-2879   *ImageStream   *
*http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE   *
*http://blog.butchevans.com/*Wired or wireless Networks*
*Mikrotik Certified Consultant  *Professional Technical Trainer*




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question

[Butch Evans]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Charles Wu wrote:

So, seeing the activity on this latest thread regarding 
Nanostations has peaked my interest...so, to satisfy my own 
curiosity, I decided to do some research on Nanostations


You didn't do quite enough research.  :-)

(I'm making a lot of assumptions here, so please correct me if I'm 
wrong, as I'm a relative newbie to this segment of the market)


Ok.  I'll do it, but I'll be gentle.  ;-)

Now, it seems to me that the Nanostation, although cheaper in 
price, due to being limited to running CSMA/CA, does not do a good 
job in competing with the Motorola Canopy / Trango / Alvarions of 
the world...people who buy those products are paying for the extra 
R&D effort put into developing a more "WISP-focused" solution than 
just "plain-ol" Wi-Fi


Here's the part that you missed.  This thread is about putting 
Mikrotik on the nanostations.  Mikrotik, if it can be installed on 
the NS, enables the ability to run NStreme, which supports the 
option to turn off CSMA.


That said, getting into the world of Wi-Fi CPE - for anyone who is 
not running a proprietary protocol, it seems that the current 
market leader is Tranzeo, however, looking at their site, it seems 
that their "value-line" (SL2) product still goes for about $130 and 
doesn't even have ½ the features of the Nanostation and AirOS


Out of curiosity, where are your numbers coming from?  I'm not 
doubting that Tranzeo is a "market leader", but would like to see 
some clarification of this or know if it is simply an opinion.


If you're running Mikrotik in 802.11x (WiFi) mode, by the time you 
factor in the cost of the card, antenna, enclosure, power supply, 
you're back at that $150 / CPE level


Correct here.  The "good news" is that while the AirOS is very nice, 
it is not NEAR as functional as Mikrotik.  The thing that makes this 
attractive to WISPs is cost, but even more than that, it is the 
combination of cost + MT functionality + a very nice package.


With the Nanostation at $89.95, why would anyone deploying a 
802.11x-based WISP buy anything else?


Very good question.

--

*Butch Evans*Professional Network Consultation *
*Network Engineering*MikroTik RouterOS *
*573-276-2879   *ImageStream   *
*http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE   *
*http://blog.butchevans.com/*Wired or wireless Networks*
*Mikrotik Certified Consultant  *Professional Technical Trainer*



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field

[John McDowell]

Depends, sub $10,000. Boun Senekham at CTI can help you with a quote if
you're interested: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 8:38 PM, Brian Rohrbacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> What about APs?
>
> John McDowell wrote:
>
> I hear RedMax is coming down in price on CPEs when you buy a pallet of 72.
> Sub $400.
>
> Mike, I'm interested to know what Alvarion is pricing the 3.65 gear now that
> it is available. Have they come down at all?
>
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Brian Rohrbacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL 
> PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> So, how much does this stuff cost?
>
> Brian
>
>
> John McDowell wrote:
>
> I believe it.
>
> Today we had a 1.5 mile shot through dense trees using Redline Redmax 3.65.
> Customer was getting close to 500k upload. Signal held steady at 88db on a
> 1-story house.
>
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Mike Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL 
> PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Many of you have known me for years, some wish they didn't :-).  I am
> the doubting Thomas type and have to test myself before I recommend
> products to a client.  Lets just say that Thomas was satisfied.  Now
> the clients are echoing the same and that is what drives my wagon.
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Mike
>
>
> At 08:52 PM 7/21/2008, you wrote:
>
>
> Same here, I thought it was all marketing hype, if it works like the
> poster mentioned, we will need to consider moving up our timetable for
> evaluating wimax, 10k a basestation suddenly isn't that bad with the
> performance described.
>
> Regards
> Michael Baird
>
>
>
> Now this is a 180* of what others have told me, even others offering
> traditional, D, and E products.
>
>
> --
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutionshttp://www.ics-il.com
>
>  Mike Cowan
> Wireless Connections
> A Division of ACC
> 166 Milan Ave
> Norwalk, OH  44857
> 419-660-6100
> 419-706-7348 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!http://signup.wispa.org/
>
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!http://signup.wispa.org/
>
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
>
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>



-- 
John M. McDowell
Boonlink Communications
307 Grand Ave NW
Fort Payne, AL 35967
256.844.9932
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.boonlink.com






This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged.
Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee),
you may not use, copy, re-transmit, or disclose to anyone the message or any
information contained in the message. If you have received the message in
error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
delete the message. E-mail communication is highly susceptible to spoofing,
spamming, and other tampering, some of which may be harmful to your
computer. If you are concerned about the authenticity of the message or the
source, please contact the sender directly.



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field

[Brian Rohrbacher]

What about APs?

John McDowell wrote:

  I hear RedMax is coming down in price on CPEs when you buy a pallet of 72.
Sub $400.

Mike, I'm interested to know what Alvarion is pricing the 3.65 gear now that
it is available. Have they come down at all?

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Brian Rohrbacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

  
  
So, how much does this stuff cost?

Brian


John McDowell wrote:

I believe it.

Today we had a 1.5 mile shot through dense trees using Redline Redmax 3.65.
Customer was getting close to 500k upload. Signal held steady at 88db on a
1-story house.

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Mike Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:



Many of you have known me for years, some wish they didn't :-).  I am
the doubting Thomas type and have to test myself before I recommend
products to a client.  Lets just say that Thomas was satisfied.  Now
the clients are echoing the same and that is what drives my wagon.
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Mike


At 08:52 PM 7/21/2008, you wrote:


Same here, I thought it was all marketing hype, if it works like the
poster mentioned, we will need to consider moving up our timetable for
evaluating wimax, 10k a basestation suddenly isn't that bad with the
performance described.

Regards
Michael Baird



Now this is a 180* of what others have told me, even others offering
traditional, D, and E products.


--
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutionshttp://www.ics-il.com

 Mike Cowan
Wireless Connections
A Division of ACC
166 Milan Ave
Norwalk, OH  44857
419-660-6100
419-706-7348 [EMAIL PROTECTED]





WISPA Wants You! Join today!http://signup.wispa.org/



WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/






WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/



WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


  
  


  






WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field

[John McDowell]

I hear RedMax is coming down in price on CPEs when you buy a pallet of 72.
Sub $400.

Mike, I'm interested to know what Alvarion is pricing the 3.65 gear now that
it is available. Have they come down at all?

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Brian Rohrbacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> So, how much does this stuff cost?
>
> Brian
>
>
> John McDowell wrote:
>
> I believe it.
>
> Today we had a 1.5 mile shot through dense trees using Redline Redmax 3.65.
> Customer was getting close to 500k upload. Signal held steady at 88db on a
> 1-story house.
>
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Mike Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL 
> PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Many of you have known me for years, some wish they didn't :-).  I am
> the doubting Thomas type and have to test myself before I recommend
> products to a client.  Lets just say that Thomas was satisfied.  Now
> the clients are echoing the same and that is what drives my wagon.
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Mike
>
>
> At 08:52 PM 7/21/2008, you wrote:
>
>
> Same here, I thought it was all marketing hype, if it works like the
> poster mentioned, we will need to consider moving up our timetable for
> evaluating wimax, 10k a basestation suddenly isn't that bad with the
> performance described.
>
> Regards
> Michael Baird
>
>
>
> Now this is a 180* of what others have told me, even others offering
> traditional, D, and E products.
>
>
> --
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutionshttp://www.ics-il.com
>
>  Mike Cowan
> Wireless Connections
> A Division of ACC
> 166 Milan Ave
> Norwalk, OH  44857
> 419-660-6100
> 419-706-7348 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!http://signup.wispa.org/
>
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
>
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>



-- 
John M. McDowell
Boonlink Communications
307 Grand Ave NW
Fort Payne, AL 35967
256.844.9932
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.boonlink.com






This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged.
Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee),
you may not use, copy, re-transmit, or disclose to anyone the message or any
information contained in the message. If you have received the message in
error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
delete the message. E-mail communication is highly susceptible to spoofing,
spamming, and other tampering, some of which may be harmful to your
computer. If you are concerned about the authenticity of the message or the
source, please contact the sender directly.



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field

[Brian Rohrbacher]

So, how much does this stuff cost?

Brian

John McDowell wrote:

  I believe it.

Today we had a 1.5 mile shot through dense trees using Redline Redmax 3.65.
Customer was getting close to 500k upload. Signal held steady at 88db on a
1-story house.

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Mike Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

  
  
Many of you have known me for years, some wish they didn't :-).  I am
the doubting Thomas type and have to test myself before I recommend
products to a client.  Lets just say that Thomas was satisfied.  Now
the clients are echoing the same and that is what drives my wagon.
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Mike


At 08:52 PM 7/21/2008, you wrote:


  Same here, I thought it was all marketing hype, if it works like the
poster mentioned, we will need to consider moving up our timetable for
evaluating wimax, 10k a basestation suddenly isn't that bad with the
performance described.

Regards
Michael Baird

  
  
Now this is a 180* of what others have told me, even others offering
traditional, D, and E products.


--
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


  

 Mike Cowan
Wireless Connections
A Division of ACC
166 Milan Ave
Norwalk, OH  44857
419-660-6100
419-706-7348 Cell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.wirelessconnections.net





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/



WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


  
  


  






WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field

[John McDowell]

I believe it.

Today we had a 1.5 mile shot through dense trees using Redline Redmax 3.65.
Customer was getting close to 500k upload. Signal held steady at 88db on a
1-story house.

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Mike Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> Many of you have known me for years, some wish they didn't :-).  I am
> the doubting Thomas type and have to test myself before I recommend
> products to a client.  Lets just say that Thomas was satisfied.  Now
> the clients are echoing the same and that is what drives my wagon.
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Mike
>
>
> At 08:52 PM 7/21/2008, you wrote:
> >Same here, I thought it was all marketing hype, if it works like the
> >poster mentioned, we will need to consider moving up our timetable for
> >evaluating wimax, 10k a basestation suddenly isn't that bad with the
> >performance described.
> >
> >Regards
> >Michael Baird
> >
> > > Now this is a 180* of what others have told me, even others offering
> > > traditional, D, and E products.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Mike Hammett
> > > Intelligent Computing Solutions
> > > http://www.ics-il.com
> > >
>
>  Mike Cowan
> Wireless Connections
> A Division of ACC
> 166 Milan Ave
> Norwalk, OH  44857
> 419-660-6100
> 419-706-7348 Cell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> www.wirelessconnections.net
>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
>
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>



-- 
John M. McDowell
Boonlink Communications
307 Grand Ave NW
Fort Payne, AL 35967
256.844.9932
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.boonlink.com






This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged.
Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee),
you may not use, copy, re-transmit, or disclose to anyone the message or any
information contained in the message. If you have received the message in
error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
delete the message. E-mail communication is highly susceptible to spoofing,
spamming, and other tampering, some of which may be harmful to your
computer. If you are concerned about the authenticity of the message or the
source, please contact the sender directly.



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field

[Mike Cowan]

Many of you have known me for years, some wish they didn't :-).  I am 
the doubting Thomas type and have to test myself before I recommend 
products to a client.  Lets just say that Thomas was satisfied.  Now 
the clients are echoing the same and that is what drives my wagon.
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Mike


At 08:52 PM 7/21/2008, you wrote:
>Same here, I thought it was all marketing hype, if it works like the
>poster mentioned, we will need to consider moving up our timetable for
>evaluating wimax, 10k a basestation suddenly isn't that bad with the
>performance described.
>
>Regards
>Michael Baird
>
> > Now this is a 180* of what others have told me, even others offering
> > traditional, D, and E products.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mike Hammett
> > Intelligent Computing Solutions
> > http://www.ics-il.com
> >

Mike Cowan
Wireless Connections
A Division of ACC
166 Milan Ave
Norwalk, OH  44857
419-660-6100
419-706-7348 Cell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.wirelessconnections.net




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field

[Michael Baird]

Same here, I thought it was all marketing hype, if it works like the
poster mentioned, we will need to consider moving up our timetable for
evaluating wimax, 10k a basestation suddenly isn't that bad with the
performance described.

Regards
Michael Baird

> Now this is a 180* of what others have told me, even others offering 
> traditional, D, and E products.
> 
> 
> --
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Mike Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 6:06 PM
> Subject: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field
> 
> 
> > With some of the Wimax discussions going on I thought I would throw
> > my hat into the ring.
> >
> > 3.650 Wimax using 802.16d only products provides decent connectivity,
> > at a higher cost than traditional unlicensed
> > gear.  Performance/coverage is on par, or better than 2.4 that most
> > of are used to.  Pay a little extra for product, gain access to
> > cleaner spectrum and hopefully a rule set that helps keep it cleaner
> > than our wild wild west unlicensed world.
> >
> > Now deploy 3.650 using 802.16e upgradeable products.  The coverage
> > difference when using diversity options goes up significantly.  Now
> > 3.650 begins to act and feel more like a 900Mhz product with NLOS
> > coverage capability.  Actually our customers, and our field tests are
> > showing that it exceeds 900Mhz often by a large margin.  Here are a
> > couple recent field examples all 2nd order diversity:
> >
> > Customer 1- 8.4 mile NLOS location. blocked by heavy trees .  1.5MB
> > download holding CPE in their hand on the ground!  Decided to test
> > 5.8 at this location and @ 50' AGL the CPE got a link.  5.8 mounted
> > on the same tower, same height as 3.650.  The 5.8 system could not
> > pass data and could just barely maintain association.
> >
> > Customer 2- 12.4 miles away at the owners home.  1.0mb on the
> > ground.  This location could not be serviced by 2.4 or 5.8 at 40'
> > above the ground previously.  The owner is going to mount Wimax on
> > the roof and I expect he will se 10-12MB at that height.
> >
> > Customer 2- 12.6 miles on the ground.  Completely obstructed 6MB down 3MB 
> > up.
> >
> > Customer 3- This is one of the most telling.  Canopy 900
> > operator.  3.650 2nd order diversity mounted 10' below Canopy.  100%
> > coverage at 3.650 of a small city.  It takes 2 tower locations
> > with  900 here to serve the same area.  They gave up field testing
> > because "it works everywhere".  They the said "lets try to break
> > it".  We drove to a part of town that is challenged with 900
> > coverage.  They found a traditionally bad coverage spot and drove up
> > to a big tree, took the CPE out of the vehicle and buried it in the
> > tree.  -101 signal.  They then picked up their VOIP phone and called
> > the NOC and did a "can you hear me now"?  Toll quality voice call.
> >
> > Our internal testing is showing similar results. Using 4th order
> > diversity is showing even better results than above.  When you do the
> > upgrade to 16e and add Wave II CPE, Katy bar the door.  That coverage
> > is nothing less than jaw dropping.  2.5 miles obstructed with a PC
> > card!  Same PC card 1 mile away entering a commercial building, no
> > signal change.  Not possible with a traditional system.  In this case
> > the wall measured a 25db loss, however STC and MRC diversity gains
> > completely made up for the attenuation once the paths became uncorrelated.
> >
> > Bottom line is diversity is the place to be with Wimax.  It is more
> > expensive, so find a way to afford it.  Push your vendor for price
> > breaks and don't be bashful.  Alvarion for example is willing to work
> > to earn business as well as the others.  CPE costs for D and E
> > systems are the same today, E will be much cheaper in the near
> > future.  Not all Wimax is the same, so test a site or visit one, you
> > will walk away amazed.
> >
> > My two cents, and we carry all D and E products.  Each has its place.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Mike Cowan
> > Wireless Connections
> > A Division of ACC
> > 166 Milan Ave
> > Norwalk, OH  44857
> > 419-660-6100
> > 419-706-7348 Cell
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > www.wirelessconnections.net
> >
> >
> > 
> > WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> > http://signup.wispa.org/
> > 
> >
> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >
> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wir

Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field

[Mike Hammett]

Now this is a 180* of what others have told me, even others offering 
traditional, D, and E products.


--
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: "Mike Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 6:06 PM
Subject: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field


> With some of the Wimax discussions going on I thought I would throw
> my hat into the ring.
>
> 3.650 Wimax using 802.16d only products provides decent connectivity,
> at a higher cost than traditional unlicensed
> gear.  Performance/coverage is on par, or better than 2.4 that most
> of are used to.  Pay a little extra for product, gain access to
> cleaner spectrum and hopefully a rule set that helps keep it cleaner
> than our wild wild west unlicensed world.
>
> Now deploy 3.650 using 802.16e upgradeable products.  The coverage
> difference when using diversity options goes up significantly.  Now
> 3.650 begins to act and feel more like a 900Mhz product with NLOS
> coverage capability.  Actually our customers, and our field tests are
> showing that it exceeds 900Mhz often by a large margin.  Here are a
> couple recent field examples all 2nd order diversity:
>
> Customer 1- 8.4 mile NLOS location. blocked by heavy trees .  1.5MB
> download holding CPE in their hand on the ground!  Decided to test
> 5.8 at this location and @ 50' AGL the CPE got a link.  5.8 mounted
> on the same tower, same height as 3.650.  The 5.8 system could not
> pass data and could just barely maintain association.
>
> Customer 2- 12.4 miles away at the owners home.  1.0mb on the
> ground.  This location could not be serviced by 2.4 or 5.8 at 40'
> above the ground previously.  The owner is going to mount Wimax on
> the roof and I expect he will se 10-12MB at that height.
>
> Customer 2- 12.6 miles on the ground.  Completely obstructed 6MB down 3MB 
> up.
>
> Customer 3- This is one of the most telling.  Canopy 900
> operator.  3.650 2nd order diversity mounted 10' below Canopy.  100%
> coverage at 3.650 of a small city.  It takes 2 tower locations
> with  900 here to serve the same area.  They gave up field testing
> because "it works everywhere".  They the said "lets try to break
> it".  We drove to a part of town that is challenged with 900
> coverage.  They found a traditionally bad coverage spot and drove up
> to a big tree, took the CPE out of the vehicle and buried it in the
> tree.  -101 signal.  They then picked up their VOIP phone and called
> the NOC and did a "can you hear me now"?  Toll quality voice call.
>
> Our internal testing is showing similar results. Using 4th order
> diversity is showing even better results than above.  When you do the
> upgrade to 16e and add Wave II CPE, Katy bar the door.  That coverage
> is nothing less than jaw dropping.  2.5 miles obstructed with a PC
> card!  Same PC card 1 mile away entering a commercial building, no
> signal change.  Not possible with a traditional system.  In this case
> the wall measured a 25db loss, however STC and MRC diversity gains
> completely made up for the attenuation once the paths became uncorrelated.
>
> Bottom line is diversity is the place to be with Wimax.  It is more
> expensive, so find a way to afford it.  Push your vendor for price
> breaks and don't be bashful.  Alvarion for example is willing to work
> to earn business as well as the others.  CPE costs for D and E
> systems are the same today, E will be much cheaper in the near
> future.  Not all Wimax is the same, so test a site or visit one, you
> will walk away amazed.
>
> My two cents, and we carry all D and E products.  Each has its place.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> Mike Cowan
> Wireless Connections
> A Division of ACC
> 166 Milan Ave
> Norwalk, OH  44857
> 419-660-6100
> 419-706-7348 Cell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> www.wirelessconnections.net
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Mike Hammett]

Right, but my point was that Mikrotik doesn't need to be worrying about 
virtualization.  They need to put some more work into QA and USEFUL feature 
expansion, like into 802.11 and 802.16, not Xen.


--
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: "Jim Patient" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations


> No Mike, not just our systems, any x86 system.  That is why we don't
> think they are ending x86 support any time soon.
>
> The package is in testing now and hasn't been officially released.
>
> Mikrotik continually works to improve the OS.  They normally respond
> well to bugs and fixes.  They take votes from users on feature
> requests.  You can vote at:
> http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/MikroTik_RouterOS/v3/Feature_Requests
>
> Jim
>
> Mike Hammett wrote:
>> So let me get this right...  Instead of working on wireless drivers,
>> improving the existing feature set, stabilizing the whole router, etc.
>> Mikrotik has been working on making your router virtual server host? 
>> Before
>> I complain directly to Mikrotik, could you point me to something official
>> saying that is out?
>>
>> Why don't they add on Media Center capability so I can store movies and 
>> TV
>> shows on my router and stream them to my XBox, or heck, let me plug in a 
>> TV
>> so I can play them directly from the router?
>>
>> Maybe they could just directly integrate with an XBox 360 and a DirecTV?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "Jim Patient" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 8:00 AM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
>>
>>
>>
>>> Spell checker must have got Dennis.  He meant Virtualization (Zen).  So
>>> now you can have your router, Asterisk, billing, mail server, web server
>>> all on one Mikrotik box.  Obviously it will take a beefy unit like the
>>> PR 2282 to do this.
>>>
>>> Jim//
>>>
>>> Mike Hammett wrote:
>>>
 Visualization?


 --
 Mike Hammett
 Intelligent Computing Solutions
 http://www.ics-il.com


 - Original Message - 
 From: "Dennis Burgess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" 
 Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 11:56 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations




> Very seriously doubt they will be dropping support for x86.  Seeing 
> that
> they just introduced visualization only offered on the x86 platform!
>
> Scottie Arnett wrote:
>
>
>> DD-WRT and OpenWRT pretty much already do this for quite a few
>> chipsets.
>> They are not near the software as Mikrotik or StarOS is...but, if
>> Mikrotikl drops support for x86, I would not be suprised if they or a
>> new
>> project starts very quickly to serve that need.
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> -- Original Message --
>> From: "Chuck McCown - 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Reply-To: WISPA General List 
>> Date:  Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:01:19 -0600
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this.
>>>
>>> - Original Message - 
>>> From: "Japhy Bartlett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
 Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book..  Remember
 how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game?  How the company
 that wrote software for specific hardware lost - hard?

 For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a
 card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or
 something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary
 firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good
 code already written and being developed?

 Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product 
 aimed
 at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier 
 admin.
 solution.  I.e., Windows and Apple.

 Look at how the PC market converged towards x86!  If Mikrotik or 
 some
 of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market
 into
 some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to
 "port" every stinking firmware flavor.

 Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful
 business model .. ever?

 And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, "well this
 firmware
 does X better".  Is there anything particularly differ

Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field

[Mike Cowan]

Hi Scottie,

No, all flat ground but Midwest trees.  Your scenario would be an 
interesting test.

Mike

At 07:59 PM 7/21/2008, you wrote:
>Mike you have peaked my interest with the 900Mhz against the 3.65. 
>Were any of these tests done with hills? My problem is we have 
>hills, and lots of them and trees too. You can't drive much more 
>than a mile without going up a hill with a change of 100 - 150 ft in 
>elevation. Anyone tested or used 3.65 under these circumstances that 
>care to chime in?
>
>Scottie

Mike Cowan
Wireless Connections
A Division of ACC
166 Milan Ave
Norwalk, OH  44857
419-660-6100
419-706-7348 Cell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.wirelessconnections.net




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field

[Scottie Arnett]

Mike you have peaked my interest with the 900Mhz against the 3.65. Were any of 
these tests done with hills? My problem is we have hills, and lots of them and 
trees too. You can't drive much more than a mile without going up a hill with a 
change of 100 - 150 ft in elevation. Anyone tested or used 3.65 under these 
circumstances that care to chime in?

Scottie

-- Original Message --
From: Mike Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: WISPA General List 
Date:  Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:06:59 -0400

>With some of the Wimax discussions going on I thought I would throw 
>my hat into the ring.
>
>3.650 Wimax using 802.16d only products provides decent connectivity, 
>at a higher cost than traditional unlicensed 
>gear.  Performance/coverage is on par, or better than 2.4 that most 
>of are used to.  Pay a little extra for product, gain access to 
>cleaner spectrum and hopefully a rule set that helps keep it cleaner 
>than our wild wild west unlicensed world.
>
>Now deploy 3.650 using 802.16e upgradeable products.  The coverage 
>difference when using diversity options goes up significantly.  Now 
>3.650 begins to act and feel more like a 900Mhz product with NLOS 
>coverage capability.  Actually our customers, and our field tests are 
>showing that it exceeds 900Mhz often by a large margin.  Here are a 
>couple recent field examples all 2nd order diversity:
>
>Customer 1- 8.4 mile NLOS location. blocked by heavy trees .  1.5MB 
>download holding CPE in their hand on the ground!  Decided to test 
>5.8 at this location and @ 50' AGL the CPE got a link.  5.8 mounted 
>on the same tower, same height as 3.650.  The 5.8 system could not 
>pass data and could just barely maintain association.
>
>Customer 2- 12.4 miles away at the owners home.  1.0mb on the 
>ground.  This location could not be serviced by 2.4 or 5.8 at 40' 
>above the ground previously.  The owner is going to mount Wimax on 
>the roof and I expect he will se 10-12MB at that height.
>
>Customer 2- 12.6 miles on the ground.  Completely obstructed 6MB down 3MB up.
>
>Customer 3- This is one of the most telling.  Canopy 900 
>operator.  3.650 2nd order diversity mounted 10' below Canopy.  100% 
>coverage at 3.650 of a small city.  It takes 2 tower locations 
>with  900 here to serve the same area.  They gave up field testing 
>because "it works everywhere".  They the said "lets try to break 
>it".  We drove to a part of town that is challenged with 900 
>coverage.  They found a traditionally bad coverage spot and drove up 
>to a big tree, took the CPE out of the vehicle and buried it in the 
>tree.  -101 signal.  They then picked up their VOIP phone and called 
>the NOC and did a "can you hear me now"?  Toll quality voice call.
>
>Our internal testing is showing similar results. Using 4th order 
>diversity is showing even better results than above.  When you do the 
>upgrade to 16e and add Wave II CPE, Katy bar the door.  That coverage 
>is nothing less than jaw dropping.  2.5 miles obstructed with a PC 
>card!  Same PC card 1 mile away entering a commercial building, no 
>signal change.  Not possible with a traditional system.  In this case 
>the wall measured a 25db loss, however STC and MRC diversity gains 
>completely made up for the attenuation once the paths became uncorrelated.
>
>Bottom line is diversity is the place to be with Wimax.  It is more 
>expensive, so find a way to afford it.  Push your vendor for price 
>breaks and don't be bashful.  Alvarion for example is willing to work 
>to earn business as well as the others.  CPE costs for D and E 
>systems are the same today, E will be much cheaper in the near 
>future.  Not all Wimax is the same, so test a site or visit one, you 
>will walk away amazed.
>
>My two cents, and we carry all D and E products.  Each has its place.
>
>Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>Mike Cowan
>Wireless Connections
>A Division of ACC
>166 Milan Ave
>Norwalk, OH  44857
>419-660-6100
>419-706-7348 Cell
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>www.wirelessconnections.net
>
>
>
>WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>http://signup.wispa.org/
>
> 
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>---
>[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
>
>

Dial-Up Internet service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $9.99/mth.
Check out www.info-ed.com for information.



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

[WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field

[Mike Cowan]

With some of the Wimax discussions going on I thought I would throw 
my hat into the ring.

3.650 Wimax using 802.16d only products provides decent connectivity, 
at a higher cost than traditional unlicensed 
gear.  Performance/coverage is on par, or better than 2.4 that most 
of are used to.  Pay a little extra for product, gain access to 
cleaner spectrum and hopefully a rule set that helps keep it cleaner 
than our wild wild west unlicensed world.

Now deploy 3.650 using 802.16e upgradeable products.  The coverage 
difference when using diversity options goes up significantly.  Now 
3.650 begins to act and feel more like a 900Mhz product with NLOS 
coverage capability.  Actually our customers, and our field tests are 
showing that it exceeds 900Mhz often by a large margin.  Here are a 
couple recent field examples all 2nd order diversity:

Customer 1- 8.4 mile NLOS location. blocked by heavy trees .  1.5MB 
download holding CPE in their hand on the ground!  Decided to test 
5.8 at this location and @ 50' AGL the CPE got a link.  5.8 mounted 
on the same tower, same height as 3.650.  The 5.8 system could not 
pass data and could just barely maintain association.

Customer 2- 12.4 miles away at the owners home.  1.0mb on the 
ground.  This location could not be serviced by 2.4 or 5.8 at 40' 
above the ground previously.  The owner is going to mount Wimax on 
the roof and I expect he will se 10-12MB at that height.

Customer 2- 12.6 miles on the ground.  Completely obstructed 6MB down 3MB up.

Customer 3- This is one of the most telling.  Canopy 900 
operator.  3.650 2nd order diversity mounted 10' below Canopy.  100% 
coverage at 3.650 of a small city.  It takes 2 tower locations 
with  900 here to serve the same area.  They gave up field testing 
because "it works everywhere".  They the said "lets try to break 
it".  We drove to a part of town that is challenged with 900 
coverage.  They found a traditionally bad coverage spot and drove up 
to a big tree, took the CPE out of the vehicle and buried it in the 
tree.  -101 signal.  They then picked up their VOIP phone and called 
the NOC and did a "can you hear me now"?  Toll quality voice call.

Our internal testing is showing similar results. Using 4th order 
diversity is showing even better results than above.  When you do the 
upgrade to 16e and add Wave II CPE, Katy bar the door.  That coverage 
is nothing less than jaw dropping.  2.5 miles obstructed with a PC 
card!  Same PC card 1 mile away entering a commercial building, no 
signal change.  Not possible with a traditional system.  In this case 
the wall measured a 25db loss, however STC and MRC diversity gains 
completely made up for the attenuation once the paths became uncorrelated.

Bottom line is diversity is the place to be with Wimax.  It is more 
expensive, so find a way to afford it.  Push your vendor for price 
breaks and don't be bashful.  Alvarion for example is willing to work 
to earn business as well as the others.  CPE costs for D and E 
systems are the same today, E will be much cheaper in the near 
future.  Not all Wimax is the same, so test a site or visit one, you 
will walk away amazed.

My two cents, and we carry all D and E products.  Each has its place.

Mike





Mike Cowan
Wireless Connections
A Division of ACC
166 Milan Ave
Norwalk, OH  44857
419-660-6100
419-706-7348 Cell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.wirelessconnections.net



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] The nanostation thing....

[Charles Wyble]

Doug Ratcliffe wrote:
> But the control point would be at the tower, not remote.  I know some WISPs 
> operate in remote areas, but this is more for a high density urban 
> deployment, similar to what you would use AirSpan or Alvarion for.
>   

Right. Makes sense. I re read the original post. My apologies. :)

> The reasoning behind the FDD style deployment would be to help compete 
> against 10Mbps+ cable connections.  Right now a 6 AP deployment usually has 
> about 10Mbps for each AP (Canopy, Trango).  My thought is to transmit-sync a 
> 50Mbps (40mhz turbo-mode) signal, with the vision that you could give fiber 
> speeds wirelessly.  Or, with 50Mbps of bandwidth (per sector) it would give 
> you the ability to serve thousands of subscribers in a high density 
> deployment.  The other though would be to be able to multicast MPEG4 video 
> over it.
>   

Yes that makes sense.
> My vision is to keep us being able to compete with cable & DSL for years to 
> come without spending a fortune.  If an open source system could interface 
> with 6 NS5's ($600) plus a rackmount PC ($1000), that's a Wimax-style QOS 
> deployment for less than the price of a single Canopy unit.  The other 
> thought is that single NS5's are 802.11 and have no ability to transmit sync 
> (i.e. share frequencies) like other systems do.  By giving it the ability to 
> do that, you have an inexpensive hardware platform with $1 per AP 
> features.
>   

Indeed.

I think you are onto something here! :)

-- 
Charles Wyble (818) 280 - 7059
http://charlesnw.blogspot.com
CTO Known Element Enterprises / SoCal WiFI project




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] The nanostation thing....

[Doug Ratcliffe]

But the control point would be at the tower, not remote.  I know some WISPs 
operate in remote areas, but this is more for a high density urban 
deployment, similar to what you would use AirSpan or Alvarion for.

The reasoning behind the FDD style deployment would be to help compete 
against 10Mbps+ cable connections.  Right now a 6 AP deployment usually has 
about 10Mbps for each AP (Canopy, Trango).  My thought is to transmit-sync a 
50Mbps (40mhz turbo-mode) signal, with the vision that you could give fiber 
speeds wirelessly.  Or, with 50Mbps of bandwidth (per sector) it would give 
you the ability to serve thousands of subscribers in a high density 
deployment.  The other though would be to be able to multicast MPEG4 video 
over it.

My vision is to keep us being able to compete with cable & DSL for years to 
come without spending a fortune.  If an open source system could interface 
with 6 NS5's ($600) plus a rackmount PC ($1000), that's a Wimax-style QOS 
deployment for less than the price of a single Canopy unit.  The other 
thought is that single NS5's are 802.11 and have no ability to transmit sync 
(i.e. share frequencies) like other systems do.  By giving it the ability to 
do that, you have an inexpensive hardware platform with $1 per AP 
features.

- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Wyble" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] The nanostation thing


> Doug Ratcliffe wrote:
>> My thoughts on this I've even mentied on the Mikrotik forum a while ago 
>> were
>> to have a 2 part system:
>>
>> An outdoor wireless unit (like a Nanostation) that does nothing but act 
>> as a
>> raw wireless interface, that connects to a master station inside the 
>> tower
>> control room that is the "intelligence", like Wimax-style QoS, polling, 
>> VOIP
>> control etc.
>
> Isn't that how the Cisco solution works with a Wireless Lan Controller?
> This works great in campus
> environments which usually have a 100mbps or gigabit wired backbone, but
> not necessarily in
> WISP type deployments.
>
> In the case of a WISP you may have an exclusive wireless network
> (wireless link between CPE and aggregation point with WiMAX or other RF
> back haul ).
> or a hybrid model (wireless link between CPE and aggregation point with
> DSL/T1 back haul).  Having the additional network infrastructure
> overhead on networks carrying customer traffic may or may not saturate
> your pipe.
>
> If you have the money to build separate control and data paths great!
>
>>  The outside part could be connected via network switch to
>> allow a failover master control unit.
>>
>
> Certainly. You want a reliable core.
>> I would think the inside part would be a rack mountable Intel/AMD server 
>> or
>> even an inexpensive workstation (since even a $250 computer has 20x the 
>> CPU
>> power of a Nanostation).
>
> Certainly.  Perhaps something like a mini ITX server.
>
>>   It would also allow the ability to sync AP
>> broadcast, and maybe even include GPS sync capability.  That would allow 
>> the
>> outdoor unit to be minimal in flash and CPU speed but still allow high 
>> speed
>> communications.  Taken further into a 6x60 deg NS2/NS5 AP tower, combine
>> that with mesh for tower to tower communications and have a Skypilot 
>> system
>> on steroids (tower to tower routing with no hop loss).
>>
>
>
> Interesting. Didn't quite follow all that, but I will research it.
>
>
>> I had taken the idea to a second level having a FDD-style system with a
>> separate transmit unit and recieve unit outdoors where the CPE would 
>> simply
>> switch frequencies or polarities to recieve their packets, and switch 
>> again
>> to transmit.
>
> Seems like a massive amount of overhead. What would the reasons and
> advantages/disadvantages for such an approach be?
>
>>
>> That could allow for a 40mhz-turbo mode broadcast (GPS synced) with 5mhz
>> channel upstream.  My thoughts were having the capability of sending out
>> 50Mbps+ downstream to clients (assuming a "dumb" wireless driver would be
>> very light on CPU usage compared to, say, a Mikrotik unit that does
>> everything but cook your breakfast).
>>
>
> mmhmm.
>> I tried some concept stuff using MadWifi but without CSMA/CD disable, 
>> 5/10
>> mhz channel support, etc it was kinda pointless.  The separate TX/RX
>> channels came as a crutch idea for CSMA/CD because you could tell the 
>> unit
>> that it is recieving on a disconnected antenna for the transmitter unit 
>> (so
>> it would never detect carrier).  In theory, it's basically like piping 
>> the
>> raw wireless data directly into the eth0 interface.  Nothing else on the
>> outdoor part, all of the intelligence is in the indoor portion of the 
>> unit.
>>
>
> Interesting what kind of network stack tuning did you do? What
> packet classifer? etc etc etc.
>> Anyone like it?
>>
>>
> It certainly warrants further discussion and investigation.
>
>
> -- 
> Charles Wyble (81

Re: [WISPA] The nanostation thing....

[Charles Wyble]

>> Right. Madwifi  ( http://madwifi.org/ ) is pretty good but having
>> trouble keeping up with new Atheros models.
>> 
>
> MadWiFi is a sort of reverse engineering.Atheros knows how the chipsets 
> work and you can buy the documentation, raw code, the secrets of the HAL, 
> everything, by licensing. 

Certainly. You are correct it's reverse engineering, and having access 
to the engineering data would result
in a better product.

>   You also have to agree to certain levels of 
> confidentiality, etc.This is why MADWIFI isn't "official" Atheros code, 
> why the HAL for open source doesn't actually belong to Atheros.

Of course. :)

>   Last I 
> knew, the cost of this was around $25K + the lawyers fees, etc...  But this 
> strict arm's length development of MADWIFI is part of the reason why it 
> performs so poorly...
>   

H define poor performance? As compared to what?

Also 25k is very cheap many IP cores sell for over a million 
dollars.  Naturally that's relative haha. :)

> The people with the access to the engineering information CAN build almost 
> anything they want, since the Atheros radios are actually software defined.

Ah now you have my attention even more... I have been getting into 
SDR recently:

GNURadio http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuradio/doc/exploring-gnuradio.html
and
http://openpattern.org/

Obviously serious assembly required.
>  
> Once you get into the core of how it works, you have the ability to build a 
> whole new original MAC, sort of.
>
>   

Right.

-- 
Charles Wyble (818) 280 - 7059
http://charlesnw.blogspot.com
CTO Known Element Enterprises / SoCal WiFI project




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents

[Tom DeReggi]

We have not ran into that yet. But thanks for letting us know.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Patrick Shoemaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 3:34 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents


> Should have read "have you been affected"...
>
>
> Patrick Shoemaker
> President, Vector Data Systems LLC
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> office: (301) 358-1690 x36
> mobile: (410) 991-5791
> http://www.vectordatasystems.com
>
>
> Patrick Shoemaker wrote:
>> Tom, on a semi-related note, have affected by the VLAN bug on these
>> radios? The radio will not respond to any traffic originating outside if
>> its own subnet if VLAN support is enabled. That means no monitoring by a
>> NMS if it's not on the same subnet as the radio.
>>
>> Trango confirmed the bug back in February but has been unable /
>> unwilling to fix it so far...
>>
>>
>> Patrick Shoemaker
>> President, Vector Data Systems LLC
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> office: (301) 358-1690 x36
>> mobile: (410) 991-5791
>> http://www.vectordatasystems.com
>>
>>
>> Tom DeReggi wrote:
>>> The T45 is probably my favorite ptp radio today, but I'm severally 
>>> limited
>>> without support for 10mhz channels.
>>> I usually run 20Mhz channels, but the safety blanket to be able to drop 
>>> to
>>> 10Mhz to get around interference is priceless, when it is needed. Thats
>>> never known until after the gear is deployed.
>>>
>>> I agree, just add supprot for 10Mhz channels, and Its all good for me.
>>>
>>> Tom DeReggi
>>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message - 
>>> From: "Gino Villarini" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 12:00 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents
>>>
>>>
 Thay just need to add a couple of features to the t45...

 Better ethernet configuration options

 5 10 40 channels support

 gino

 -Original Message-
 From: Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:13 AM
 To: WISPA General List 
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents

> Which really leaves me wondering what Trango is going to be selling?
 Kick ASX  PTP systems. Both Tri-Band Atlases, and Licensed Links.  The
 have
 the potential to stay a price leader in Quality PtP.

 As for the PTMP
 To this day, I have never been able to get over the need to do scans on
 the
 fly from APs, to determine best channel to try.
 The Atlas still gives us that, and makes it a long term contendor 
 against
 all the other options.

 I think Trango realizes they can't miss the PTP licensed market, (its 
 to
 important) and that they need to stay focused on it.

 What I don't understand is why they can't just write some quick 
 firmware
 mods, and turn the Atlast PTP Ext into an Atlas PTMP AP?
 I sure hope they don't give up on the MM5, even if it can't give us
 everything we want.

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


 - Original Message - 
 From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 To: "WISPA General List" 
 Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 2:04 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents


> Hi,
>
> You are correct... my mistake.
>
> However, the MM5 was going to be 5ghz along with an MM2 (2.4ghz) and 
> MM9
> (900mhz)... but as you mentioned, the products have been discontinued.
> Which really leaves me wondering what Trango is going to be selling?
> Their 5 year old product is getting slow, and is still very expensive. 
> :(
>
> Travis
>
>
> Charles Wu wrote:
>> Travis,
>>
>> The Trango 5830 / 900 / 2400 were up/down-coverted 802.11b - not 
>> 802.11a
>> systems
>>
>> The only 802.11a multipoint system that Trango had was MM5, and it is 
>> my
>> understanding that (1) it was never for 900 MHz and (2) it has been 
>> put
>> on hold / discontinued
>>
>> -Charles
>>
>> ---
>> WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
>> Coming to a City Near You
>> http://www.winog.com
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>> On
>> Behalf Of Travis Johnson
>> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:08 AM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents
>>
>> What about Trango?
>>
>> Charles Wu wrote:
>>
>> So, what down converted 802.11a systems are there for 900?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Mini-PCI:
>>
>> Ubiquiti
>>
>> Zcomax
>>
>

Re: [WISPA] The nanostation thing....

[reader]

- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Wyble" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] The nanostation thing


>
> Right. Madwifi  ( http://madwifi.org/ ) is pretty good but having
> trouble keeping up with new Atheros models.

MadWiFi is a sort of reverse engineering.Atheros knows how the chipsets 
work and you can buy the documentation, raw code, the secrets of the HAL, 
everything, by licensing.   You also have to agree to certain levels of 
confidentiality, etc.This is why MADWIFI isn't "official" Atheros code, 
why the HAL for open source doesn't actually belong to Atheros.  Last I 
knew, the cost of this was around $25K + the lawyers fees, etc...  But this 
strict arm's length development of MADWIFI is part of the reason why it 
performs so poorly...

The people with the access to the engineering information CAN build almost 
anything they want, since the Atheros radios are actually software defined. 
Once you get into the core of how it works, you have the ability to build a 
whole new original MAC, sort of.

The money is what you pay for the license to use the information that 
Atheros gives you under confidentiality agreements.

Now, YOU HAVE TO KEEP CONFIDENTIAL what you get, and the people using the 
GPL license run into some grief with that.   BSD frees you from much of 
those constraints, makes a better system for closed/open source mix. 
Basically, you have to have to have seriously legally bound writers for the 
closed part of the code, and everyone else has no access to it.   Probably 
end up with either closed source LKM's or a userland app or a daemon to 
accomplish this.   Nice thing about it, is there's a LOT of hardware that 
has BSD licensed kernels...

>
>> I got several interested parties including developers and WISP's, but the
>> obstacle is the funding.
>>
>> The reason you need substantial funding:   The wireless driver holds the 
>> key
>> here.  You need the license from Atheros, and that alone is a serious 
>> chunk
>> of money.   We came up with a couple of viable methods of making the idea
>> work.   The driver development has to keep the Atheros sources closed, 
>> and
>> like other people have done, fundamental adjustment of the MAC would be 
>> the
>> ultimate function.
>>
>
> So what exactly are you referring to here which requires a license? The
> IP core? The HAL?

Specifically, the HAL, but also a lot of engineering information they pass 
on to you.  YOu learn how the radio works and how it can be changed... and 
you keep it a secret :)







WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents

[Tom DeReggi]

I fully agree. I'd rather a product line be cancelled than one released that 
would cause the buyers to loose face/money after we bought into the line. Of 
course what I would like most, is the product that the MM5 promised. But as 
the song goes, "You can't always get what you want, but sometimes you can 
get what you need."  To Trango's defense, it was an ambutious effort,  and 
one nobody else could deliver on yet either. What I do respect is someone's 
vision to try, and Trango definately tried. Trango invested huge amounts of 
time and money R&Ding the MM5 product line, to the point that Betas were on 
the street. I applaud their vision and effort, even if it did not come to 
play. Its that vision, that has enabled Trango to put out so many good 
products that they have put out to date. Its that vision that is allowing a 
very strong base of Licensed products to develop today as well.

It still amazes me every day, that I have Radios installed and running since 
2000 (eight years), and they are still my radio of choice in many many 
cases.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Randy Cosby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents


> I've heard most of the backstory on the Trango MM death.  In a way I
> think we should applaud Z for killing it.  It would not do what we
> needed for the next generation product it needed to be.  He could have
> delivered it half-baked, and maybe even broken even on it, but in the
> long term, it would have cost us all.   He took a painful loss, dropped
> some programmers / engineers who could not deliver what they promised,
> and is now regrouping.  I've heard rumor of them considering "ramped up"
> AP for the current line, but am not holding my breath.  I also
> understand they may be working on a very high-end 5GHZ ptp link radio
> (like the Giga line).  That could be a good thing too.  3.650 would be
> nice :)
>
> Appreciate your input and insight Charles.
>
> Randy
>
>
> Charles Wu wrote:
>> Trango is a very opportunistic company ran by a smart and opportunistic 
>> individual, and Z tends to chase the market that makes Z the most money 
>> (can't really blame him, as every small business / entrepreneur 
>> ultimately employs a similar type of strategy)...at this juncture, their 
>> cheap licensed backhaul is probably creating more buzz and profitability 
>> for them than trying to develop a multi-point line in a market that's 
>> currently racing to the bottom...
>>
>> Think about it, if you were a radio manufacturer, and you could sell a 
>> $8-10k backhaul to a single customer that probably has the same amount 
>> (if not more) of margin vs selling several hundred SUs to about 30-50 
>> different WISPs, which would you pick?
>>
>> That said, the good news about Trango is that they're privately held (by 
>> Z), profitable, and not really in danger of going out of business...the 
>> only thing you can blame them for is not being true to their promises in 
>> 2004/2005 about an upgrade path for their multi-point product line
>>
>> So yell at them for not being willing to take a "longer-term" view of the 
>> market, but with the rapid change in today's market, is this really even 
>> possible?
>>
>> Broken promises in telecom are nothing new
>>
>> Motorola's No-SM left behind program (that got "left behind" with the 
>> Canopy 400 series product)
>> Wi-LAN's WiMAX Upgrade Guarantee (they went out of business and I doubt 
>> EION Wireless is going to honor those contracts)
>> Remember KarlNet?
>>
>> Think that's bad...look elsewhere in the Telecom market...anyone ever 
>> heard of CopperCom =)
>>
>> -Charles
>>
>>
>> ---
>> WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
>> Coming to a City Near You
>> http://www.winog.com
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
>> Behalf Of Travis Johnson
>> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 2:04 PM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> You are correct... my mistake.
>>
>> However, the MM5 was going to be 5ghz along with an MM2 (2.4ghz) and MM9
>> (900mhz)... but as you mentioned, the products have been discontinued.
>> Which really leaves me wondering what Trango is going to be selling?
>> Their 5 year old product is getting slow, and is still very expensive. :(
>>
>> Travis
>>
>>
>> Charles Wu wrote:
>>
>>> Travis,
>>>
>>> The Trango 5830 / 900 / 2400 were up/down-coverted 802.11b - not 802.11a 
>>> systems
>>>
>>> The only 802.11a multipoint system that Trango had was MM5, and it is my 
>>> understanding that (1) it was never for 900 MHz and (2) it has been put 
>>> on hold / discontinued
>>>
>>> -Charles
>>>
>>> ---
>>> WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
>>> Coming to a City Ne

Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents

[Patrick Shoemaker]

Should have read "have you been affected"...


Patrick Shoemaker
President, Vector Data Systems LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
office: (301) 358-1690 x36
mobile: (410) 991-5791
http://www.vectordatasystems.com


Patrick Shoemaker wrote:
> Tom, on a semi-related note, have affected by the VLAN bug on these 
> radios? The radio will not respond to any traffic originating outside if 
> its own subnet if VLAN support is enabled. That means no monitoring by a 
> NMS if it's not on the same subnet as the radio.
> 
> Trango confirmed the bug back in February but has been unable / 
> unwilling to fix it so far...
> 
> 
> Patrick Shoemaker
> President, Vector Data Systems LLC
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> office: (301) 358-1690 x36
> mobile: (410) 991-5791
> http://www.vectordatasystems.com
> 
> 
> Tom DeReggi wrote:
>> The T45 is probably my favorite ptp radio today, but I'm severally limited 
>> without support for 10mhz channels.
>> I usually run 20Mhz channels, but the safety blanket to be able to drop to 
>> 10Mhz to get around interference is priceless, when it is needed. Thats 
>> never known until after the gear is deployed.
>>
>> I agree, just add supprot for 10Mhz channels, and Its all good for me.
>>
>> Tom DeReggi
>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "Gino Villarini" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 12:00 PM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents
>>
>>
>>> Thay just need to add a couple of features to the t45...
>>>
>>> Better ethernet configuration options
>>>
>>> 5 10 40 channels support
>>>
>>> gino
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:13 AM
>>> To: WISPA General List 
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents
>>>
 Which really leaves me wondering what Trango is going to be selling?
>>> Kick ASX  PTP systems. Both Tri-Band Atlases, and Licensed Links.  The 
>>> have
>>> the potential to stay a price leader in Quality PtP.
>>>
>>> As for the PTMP
>>> To this day, I have never been able to get over the need to do scans on 
>>> the
>>> fly from APs, to determine best channel to try.
>>> The Atlas still gives us that, and makes it a long term contendor against
>>> all the other options.
>>>
>>> I think Trango realizes they can't miss the PTP licensed market, (its to
>>> important) and that they need to stay focused on it.
>>>
>>> What I don't understand is why they can't just write some quick firmware
>>> mods, and turn the Atlast PTP Ext into an Atlas PTMP AP?
>>> I sure hope they don't give up on the MM5, even if it can't give us
>>> everything we want.
>>>
>>> Tom DeReggi
>>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message - 
>>> From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 2:04 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents
>>>
>>>
 Hi,

 You are correct... my mistake.

 However, the MM5 was going to be 5ghz along with an MM2 (2.4ghz) and MM9
 (900mhz)... but as you mentioned, the products have been discontinued.
 Which really leaves me wondering what Trango is going to be selling?
 Their 5 year old product is getting slow, and is still very expensive. :(

 Travis


 Charles Wu wrote:
> Travis,
>
> The Trango 5830 / 900 / 2400 were up/down-coverted 802.11b - not 802.11a
> systems
>
> The only 802.11a multipoint system that Trango had was MM5, and it is my
> understanding that (1) it was never for 900 MHz and (2) it has been put
> on hold / discontinued
>
> -Charles
>
> ---
> WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
> Coming to a City Near You
> http://www.winog.com
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Travis Johnson
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:08 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents
>
> What about Trango?
>
> Charles Wu wrote:
>
> So, what down converted 802.11a systems are there for 900?
>
>
>
>
>
> Mini-PCI:
>
> Ubiquiti
>
> Zcomax
>
>
>
> Vendor Solutions:
>
> Tranzeo
>
> Alvarion
>
> Vecima/WaveRider
>
> Wu-Wu Special*
>
>
>
> *We are doing some exploratory investigation =)
>
>
>
> -Charles
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
>
> From: "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
>
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:19 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents

Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents

[Patrick Shoemaker]

Tom, on a semi-related note, have affected by the VLAN bug on these 
radios? The radio will not respond to any traffic originating outside if 
its own subnet if VLAN support is enabled. That means no monitoring by a 
NMS if it's not on the same subnet as the radio.

Trango confirmed the bug back in February but has been unable / 
unwilling to fix it so far...


Patrick Shoemaker
President, Vector Data Systems LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
office: (301) 358-1690 x36
mobile: (410) 991-5791
http://www.vectordatasystems.com


Tom DeReggi wrote:
> The T45 is probably my favorite ptp radio today, but I'm severally limited 
> without support for 10mhz channels.
> I usually run 20Mhz channels, but the safety blanket to be able to drop to 
> 10Mhz to get around interference is priceless, when it is needed. Thats 
> never known until after the gear is deployed.
> 
> I agree, just add supprot for 10Mhz channels, and Its all good for me.
> 
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Gino Villarini" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 12:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents
> 
> 
>> Thay just need to add a couple of features to the t45...
>>
>> Better ethernet configuration options
>>
>> 5 10 40 channels support
>>
>> gino
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:13 AM
>> To: WISPA General List 
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents
>>
>>> Which really leaves me wondering what Trango is going to be selling?
>> Kick ASX  PTP systems. Both Tri-Band Atlases, and Licensed Links.  The 
>> have
>> the potential to stay a price leader in Quality PtP.
>>
>> As for the PTMP
>> To this day, I have never been able to get over the need to do scans on 
>> the
>> fly from APs, to determine best channel to try.
>> The Atlas still gives us that, and makes it a long term contendor against
>> all the other options.
>>
>> I think Trango realizes they can't miss the PTP licensed market, (its to
>> important) and that they need to stay focused on it.
>>
>> What I don't understand is why they can't just write some quick firmware
>> mods, and turn the Atlast PTP Ext into an Atlas PTMP AP?
>> I sure hope they don't give up on the MM5, even if it can't give us
>> everything we want.
>>
>> Tom DeReggi
>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 2:04 PM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents
>>
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> You are correct... my mistake.
>>>
>>> However, the MM5 was going to be 5ghz along with an MM2 (2.4ghz) and MM9
>>> (900mhz)... but as you mentioned, the products have been discontinued.
>>> Which really leaves me wondering what Trango is going to be selling?
>>> Their 5 year old product is getting slow, and is still very expensive. :(
>>>
>>> Travis
>>>
>>>
>>> Charles Wu wrote:
 Travis,

 The Trango 5830 / 900 / 2400 were up/down-coverted 802.11b - not 802.11a
 systems

 The only 802.11a multipoint system that Trango had was MM5, and it is my
 understanding that (1) it was never for 900 MHz and (2) it has been put
 on hold / discontinued

 -Charles

 ---
 WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
 Coming to a City Near You
 http://www.winog.com
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Travis Johnson
 Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:08 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents

 What about Trango?

 Charles Wu wrote:

 So, what down converted 802.11a systems are there for 900?





 Mini-PCI:

 Ubiquiti

 Zcomax



 Vendor Solutions:

 Tranzeo

 Alvarion

 Vecima/WaveRider

 Wu-Wu Special*



 *We are doing some exploratory investigation =)



 -Charles



 - Original Message -

 From: "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

 To: "WISPA General List" 

 Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:19 PM

 Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents







 Even thought this thread is a bit old, couldn't help but add my 2 cents

 (as there seems to be a resurgence of "puff" in this space)







 DISCLAIMER: I am also a vendor of various WiMAX 802.16d systems - so 
 feel

 free to apply your necessary 'BS' filter










>

Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents

[Tom DeReggi]

The T45 is probably my favorite ptp radio today, but I'm severally limited 
without support for 10mhz channels.
I usually run 20Mhz channels, but the safety blanket to be able to drop to 
10Mhz to get around interference is priceless, when it is needed. Thats 
never known until after the gear is deployed.

I agree, just add supprot for 10Mhz channels, and Its all good for me.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Gino Villarini" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents


> Thay just need to add a couple of features to the t45...
>
> Better ethernet configuration options
>
> 5 10 40 channels support
>
> gino
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:13 AM
> To: WISPA General List 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents
>
>> Which really leaves me wondering what Trango is going to be selling?
>
> Kick ASX  PTP systems. Both Tri-Band Atlases, and Licensed Links.  The 
> have
> the potential to stay a price leader in Quality PtP.
>
> As for the PTMP
> To this day, I have never been able to get over the need to do scans on 
> the
> fly from APs, to determine best channel to try.
> The Atlas still gives us that, and makes it a long term contendor against
> all the other options.
>
> I think Trango realizes they can't miss the PTP licensed market, (its to
> important) and that they need to stay focused on it.
>
> What I don't understand is why they can't just write some quick firmware
> mods, and turn the Atlast PTP Ext into an Atlas PTMP AP?
> I sure hope they don't give up on the MM5, even if it can't give us
> everything we want.
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 2:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents
>
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> You are correct... my mistake.
>>
>> However, the MM5 was going to be 5ghz along with an MM2 (2.4ghz) and MM9
>> (900mhz)... but as you mentioned, the products have been discontinued.
>> Which really leaves me wondering what Trango is going to be selling?
>> Their 5 year old product is getting slow, and is still very expensive. :(
>>
>> Travis
>>
>>
>> Charles Wu wrote:
>>> Travis,
>>>
>>> The Trango 5830 / 900 / 2400 were up/down-coverted 802.11b - not 802.11a
>>> systems
>>>
>>> The only 802.11a multipoint system that Trango had was MM5, and it is my
>>> understanding that (1) it was never for 900 MHz and (2) it has been put
>>> on hold / discontinued
>>>
>>> -Charles
>>>
>>> ---
>>> WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
>>> Coming to a City Near You
>>> http://www.winog.com
>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>>> Behalf Of Travis Johnson
>>> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:08 AM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents
>>>
>>> What about Trango?
>>>
>>> Charles Wu wrote:
>>>
>>> So, what down converted 802.11a systems are there for 900?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mini-PCI:
>>>
>>> Ubiquiti
>>>
>>> Zcomax
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Vendor Solutions:
>>>
>>> Tranzeo
>>>
>>> Alvarion
>>>
>>> Vecima/WaveRider
>>>
>>> Wu-Wu Special*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *We are doing some exploratory investigation =)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Charles
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>>
>>> From: "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>
>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>>
>>> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:19 PM
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Even thought this thread is a bit old, couldn't help but add my 2 cents
>>>
>>> (as there seems to be a resurgence of "puff" in this space)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> DISCLAIMER: I am also a vendor of various WiMAX 802.16d systems - so 
>>> feel
>>>
>>> free to apply your necessary 'BS' filter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. Spectral efficiency ( 4.85 gross bp/hz ) On a six sector
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> configuration with only 25mhz of spectrum, you can effectively deliver
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> approx 20mb per sector or 120 mb / per pop, 240 mb when all 50 mhz is
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> supported. Support for thousands of subscribers is possible off the same
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> BSU.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This isn't all too exciting, IMO - there are plenty of systems out there
>>>
>>> that have similar (if not better) spectral efficiency characteristics as
>>>
>>> to what the WiMAX 802.16d standard offers...also, with the uncertainties
>>>
>>> of 3650 licensing, which is, from an interference

[WISPA] Chickasha Ok

[Mike Goicoechea]

Hey all,

Does anyone service Chickasha Oklahoma area? Please hit me off list. 

 

Thanks,

Mike Goicoechea

[EMAIL PROTECTED] 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Matt Jenkins]

DD-WRT does run on the NS.

Chuck McCown - 3 wrote:
> I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this.
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Japhy Bartlett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
> 
> 
>> Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book..  Remember
>> how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game?  How the company
>> that wrote software for specific hardware lost - hard?
>>
>> For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a
>> card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or
>> something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary
>> firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good
>> code already written and being developed?
>>
>> Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed
>> at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin.
>> solution.  I.e., Windows and Apple.
>>
>> Look at how the PC market converged towards x86!  If Mikrotik or some
>> of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into
>> some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to
>> "port" every stinking firmware flavor.
>>
>> Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful
>> business model .. ever?
>>
>> And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, "well this firmware
>> does X better".  Is there anything particularly different between
>> Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS?
>>
>> - japhy
>>
>>
>>> And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
>>> oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and
>>> having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
>>> Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik
>>> supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
>>> hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS.  I don't understand
 why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware
 giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40.  Hardware has to be
 manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent.  If they are
 already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
 the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.

 People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
 an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
 unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
 than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
 would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.

 If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
 market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
 would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as
 well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
 $40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
 network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
 manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
 especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
 really expressed and interest in working with them.

 Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is 
 interested...

 Sam Tetherow
 Sandhills Wireless

 Matt Ferre wrote:
> Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't
> exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly
> see why.
>
> Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No,
> their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years
> they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
> software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
> situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
> ever.
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:
>
>
>>> Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has
>>> support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to
>>> support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get
>>> Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone?
>>>
> My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that
> MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
> not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with
> a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
> could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
> lic

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question

[Randy Cosby]

There are some apples / oranges differences between Tranzeo and 
Nanostation that Tranzeo really ought to trumpet more.  Things like 
firmware rollbacks, built-in RAID file systems, etc.  And they have had 
a lot more time to work out a lot of bugs and irritations.  All of mine 
just work.  Oh, and fcc-approved 5.4 :)  They seem to be at or near the 
end of their development timeline though for the current product line.  
So on the surface, feature-wise, NS does trump them.  I just don't trust 
them yet.

My first experience with the NS5 in a PTP link was not the best.  
Eventually a beta firmware helped stop it from locking up randomly after 
a few days.  Not something I'd use for another year or more for a 
critical client.

Randy


Charles Wu wrote:


That said, getting into the world of Wi-Fi CPE - for anyone who is not running 
a proprietary protocol, it seems that the current market leader is Tranzeo, 
however, looking at their site, it seems that their "value-line" (SL2) product 
still goes for about $130 and doesn't even have ½ the features of the 
Nanostation and AirOS





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Charles Wyble]

Randy Cosby wrote:

Is polling like token passing?

Say something like http://frottle.sourceforge.net/ ?

> Where is the polling you refer to?  Is that in the beta firmware or 
> something? I haven't noticed it.
>
> Randy
>
>   
-- 
Charles Wyble (818) 280 - 7059
http://charlesnw.blogspot.com
CTO Known Element Enterprises / SoCal WiFI project




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Randy Cosby]

Where is the polling you refer to?  Is that in the beta firmware or 
something? I haven't noticed it.

Randy


Travis Johnson wrote:
> The AirOS that comes on the Nanostations also has polling the 
> issue is having a product that is compatible and has the features that 
> people are already used to. Having Mikrotik on the Nano's would open 
> up a whole new world.
>
> Travis
>
> Gino Villarini wrote:
>> Well you all have the option to flash the nanostations with oswave firmware. 
>>  The oswave has polling...
>>
>> gino
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Matt Larsen - Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:21 AM
>> To: WISPA General List 
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
>>
>> Travis Johnson wrote:
>>   
>>> Matt,
>>>
>>> I agree with almost everything you said... except the polling part. 
>>> Having a robust, efficient polling system is the best thing available 
>>> for outdoor wireless. That is one of the main reasons we are now using 
>>> Mikrotik is because of their Nstreme and polling system. We are 
>>> finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does 
>>> work.
>>>
>>> How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP 
>>> with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I 
>>> have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to 
>>> the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control 
>>> the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the 
>>> AP (on the upload side).
>>>
>>> Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients 
>>> without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a 
>>> download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the 
>>> download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if 
>>> you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while 
>>> the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an 
>>> upload running.
>>> 
>>
>> Um, bandwidth limiting?   As long as the AP has the upload speed coming 
>> from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity 
>> of the pipe, its not a problem.   I'm doing the test right now, and I 
>> have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter. 
>>
>>   
>>> What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running 
>>> Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer 
>>> CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :)
>>>
>>> 
>>
>> Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS.  
>>
>> Matt Larsen
>> vistabeam.com
>>   
>>> Travis
>>> Microserv
>>>
>>> Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:
>>> 
 Hi Travis,

 I'm with you - the Nanostations are a pretty amazing product.   I've 
 been deploying Nanostations on 10mhz channels in 2.4 and 5ghz with 
 StarOS access points and the performance/interference resistance is 
 pretty amazing at ANY price point.   I could say the same thing for the 
 newer Tranzeo CPE units as well, but they can't match up with the 
 Ubiquity price point just yet.

 It is neat to see a product with many of the Canopy advantages (rich 
 features, small footprint, inexpensive to produce, good interference 
 resistance) that is compatible with the 802.11a/b/g standards and thus 
 able to take advantage of the very innovative Mikrotik and StarOS 
 platforms. 

 I'm curious to see if someone comes up with a good reflector for the 
 Nanostation radios.  That would enable the use of the adaptive antenna 
 mode, and since StarOS has the ability to switch connectors on the fly - 
 and potentially polarity if hooked up to a dual-pol antenna - you would 
 end up with a standards based product that would have nearly every 
 feature that the Trangos had that made them special (noise threshold at 
 the AP, software switchable polarity, site survey, etc).   No polling, 
 but that is one of the most overrated features anyway.

 Matt Larsen
 vistabeam.com


 Travis Johnson wrote:
   
   
> Hi,
>
> I would agree... I think there is an opportunity as well. There are some 
> new products in the market recently (Ubiquiti Nanostation) that could 
> shake things up a little. Getting an FCC product with PoE and a Ubiquiti 
> quality radio for $79 is pretty amazing (I will be testing some this 
> coming week). It really makes you wonder how much money some of these 
> companies can really have into a radio system (Trango, Canopy, etc.) 
> when Ubiquiti can sell a brand new product for $79 MSRP. Granted there 
> are not a lot of "bells and whistles", but honestly most of the WISP's 
> out there don't need that. If you can buy a radio for $79, you can put 
> whatever you need behind it (Cisco, Mikrotik, etc.) and still be less 
> than $200 for a nice CPE.
>
> I think Trango's

Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents

[Randy Cosby]

I've heard most of the backstory on the Trango MM death.  In a way I 
think we should applaud Z for killing it.  It would not do what we 
needed for the next generation product it needed to be.  He could have 
delivered it half-baked, and maybe even broken even on it, but in the 
long term, it would have cost us all.   He took a painful loss, dropped 
some programmers / engineers who could not deliver what they promised, 
and is now regrouping.  I've heard rumor of them considering "ramped up" 
AP for the current line, but am not holding my breath.  I also 
understand they may be working on a very high-end 5GHZ ptp link radio 
(like the Giga line).  That could be a good thing too.  3.650 would be 
nice :)

Appreciate your input and insight Charles. 

Randy


Charles Wu wrote:
> Trango is a very opportunistic company ran by a smart and opportunistic 
> individual, and Z tends to chase the market that makes Z the most money 
> (can't really blame him, as every small business / entrepreneur ultimately 
> employs a similar type of strategy)...at this juncture, their cheap licensed 
> backhaul is probably creating more buzz and profitability for them than 
> trying to develop a multi-point line in a market that's currently racing to 
> the bottom...
>
> Think about it, if you were a radio manufacturer, and you could sell a $8-10k 
> backhaul to a single customer that probably has the same amount (if not more) 
> of margin vs selling several hundred SUs to about 30-50 different WISPs, 
> which would you pick?
>
> That said, the good news about Trango is that they're privately held (by Z), 
> profitable, and not really in danger of going out of business...the only 
> thing you can blame them for is not being true to their promises in 2004/2005 
> about an upgrade path for their multi-point product line
>
> So yell at them for not being willing to take a "longer-term" view of the 
> market, but with the rapid change in today's market, is this really even 
> possible?
>
> Broken promises in telecom are nothing new
>
> Motorola's No-SM left behind program (that got "left behind" with the Canopy 
> 400 series product)
> Wi-LAN's WiMAX Upgrade Guarantee (they went out of business and I doubt EION 
> Wireless is going to honor those contracts)
> Remember KarlNet?
>
> Think that's bad...look elsewhere in the Telecom market...anyone ever heard 
> of CopperCom =)
>
> -Charles
>
>
> ---
> WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
> Coming to a City Near You
> http://www.winog.com
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson
> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 2:04 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents
>
> Hi,
>
> You are correct... my mistake.
>
> However, the MM5 was going to be 5ghz along with an MM2 (2.4ghz) and MM9
> (900mhz)... but as you mentioned, the products have been discontinued.
> Which really leaves me wondering what Trango is going to be selling?
> Their 5 year old product is getting slow, and is still very expensive. :(
>
> Travis
>
>
> Charles Wu wrote:
>   
>> Travis,
>>
>> The Trango 5830 / 900 / 2400 were up/down-coverted 802.11b - not 802.11a 
>> systems
>>
>> The only 802.11a multipoint system that Trango had was MM5, and it is my 
>> understanding that (1) it was never for 900 MHz and (2) it has been put on 
>> hold / discontinued
>>
>> -Charles
>>
>> ---
>> WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
>> Coming to a City Near You
>> http://www.winog.com
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson
>> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:08 AM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents
>>
>> What about Trango?
>>
>> Charles Wu wrote:
>>
>> So, what down converted 802.11a systems are there for 900?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Mini-PCI:
>>
>> Ubiquiti
>>
>> Zcomax
>>
>>
>>
>> Vendor Solutions:
>>
>> Tranzeo
>>
>> Alvarion
>>
>> Vecima/WaveRider
>>
>> Wu-Wu Special*
>>
>>
>>
>> *We are doing some exploratory investigation =)
>>
>>
>>
>> -Charles
>>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>>
>> From: "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>
>> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:19 PM
>>
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Even thought this thread is a bit old, couldn't help but add my 2 cents
>>
>> (as there seems to be a resurgence of "puff" in this space)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> DISCLAIMER: I am also a vendor of various WiMAX 802.16d systems - so feel
>>
>> free to apply your necessary 'BS' filter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. Spectral efficiency ( 4.85 gross bp/hz ) On a six sector
>>
>>
>>
>> configuration with only 25mhz of spectrum, you can effectively deliver
>>
>>

Re: [WISPA] The nanostation thing....

[Charles Wyble]

Doug Ratcliffe wrote:
> My thoughts on this I've even mentied on the Mikrotik forum a while ago were 
> to have a 2 part system:
>
> An outdoor wireless unit (like a Nanostation) that does nothing but act as a 
> raw wireless interface, that connects to a master station inside the tower 
> control room that is the "intelligence", like Wimax-style QoS, polling, VOIP 
> control etc. 

Isn't that how the Cisco solution works with a Wireless Lan Controller?  
This works great in campus
environments which usually have a 100mbps or gigabit wired backbone, but 
not necessarily in
WISP type deployments.

In the case of a WISP you may have an exclusive wireless network 
(wireless link between CPE and aggregation point with WiMAX or other RF 
back haul ).
or a hybrid model (wireless link between CPE and aggregation point with 
DSL/T1 back haul).  Having the additional network infrastructure 
overhead on networks carrying customer traffic may or may not saturate 
your pipe.

If you have the money to build separate control and data paths great!

>  The outside part could be connected via network switch to 
> allow a failover master control unit.
>   

Certainly. You want a reliable core.
> I would think the inside part would be a rack mountable Intel/AMD server or 
> even an inexpensive workstation (since even a $250 computer has 20x the CPU 
> power of a Nanostation).

Certainly.  Perhaps something like a mini ITX server.

>   It would also allow the ability to sync AP 
> broadcast, and maybe even include GPS sync capability.  That would allow the 
> outdoor unit to be minimal in flash and CPU speed but still allow high speed 
> communications.  Taken further into a 6x60 deg NS2/NS5 AP tower, combine 
> that with mesh for tower to tower communications and have a Skypilot system 
> on steroids (tower to tower routing with no hop loss).
>   


Interesting. Didn't quite follow all that, but I will research it.


> I had taken the idea to a second level having a FDD-style system with a 
> separate transmit unit and recieve unit outdoors where the CPE would simply 
> switch frequencies or polarities to recieve their packets, and switch again 
> to transmit. 

Seems like a massive amount of overhead. What would the reasons and 
advantages/disadvantages for such an approach be?

>
> That could allow for a 40mhz-turbo mode broadcast (GPS synced) with 5mhz 
> channel upstream.  My thoughts were having the capability of sending out 
> 50Mbps+ downstream to clients (assuming a "dumb" wireless driver would be 
> very light on CPU usage compared to, say, a Mikrotik unit that does 
> everything but cook your breakfast).
>   

mmhmm.
> I tried some concept stuff using MadWifi but without CSMA/CD disable, 5/10 
> mhz channel support, etc it was kinda pointless.  The separate TX/RX 
> channels came as a crutch idea for CSMA/CD because you could tell the unit 
> that it is recieving on a disconnected antenna for the transmitter unit (so 
> it would never detect carrier).  In theory, it's basically like piping the 
> raw wireless data directly into the eth0 interface.  Nothing else on the 
> outdoor part, all of the intelligence is in the indoor portion of the unit.
>   

Interesting what kind of network stack tuning did you do? What 
packet classifer? etc etc etc.
> Anyone like it?
>
>   
It certainly warrants further discussion and investigation.


-- 
Charles Wyble (818) 280 - 7059
http://charlesnw.blogspot.com
CTO Known Element Enterprises / SoCal WiFI project




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] The nanostation thing....

[Doug Ratcliffe]

My thoughts on this I've even mentied on the Mikrotik forum a while ago were 
to have a 2 part system:

An outdoor wireless unit (like a Nanostation) that does nothing but act as a 
raw wireless interface, that connects to a master station inside the tower 
control room that is the "intelligence", like Wimax-style QoS, polling, VOIP 
control etc.  The outside part could be connected via network switch to 
allow a failover master control unit.

I would think the inside part would be a rack mountable Intel/AMD server or 
even an inexpensive workstation (since even a $250 computer has 20x the CPU 
power of a Nanostation).  It would also allow the ability to sync AP 
broadcast, and maybe even include GPS sync capability.  That would allow the 
outdoor unit to be minimal in flash and CPU speed but still allow high speed 
communications.  Taken further into a 6x60 deg NS2/NS5 AP tower, combine 
that with mesh for tower to tower communications and have a Skypilot system 
on steroids (tower to tower routing with no hop loss).

I had taken the idea to a second level having a FDD-style system with a 
separate transmit unit and recieve unit outdoors where the CPE would simply 
switch frequencies or polarities to recieve their packets, and switch again 
to transmit.  With the NS2/NS5 dual polarity antennas that's something that 
would be doable vs. my original idea of using the 2ft dishes and dual 
polarity LNBs.

That could allow for a 40mhz-turbo mode broadcast (GPS synced) with 5mhz 
channel upstream.  My thoughts were having the capability of sending out 
50Mbps+ downstream to clients (assuming a "dumb" wireless driver would be 
very light on CPU usage compared to, say, a Mikrotik unit that does 
everything but cook your breakfast).

I tried some concept stuff using MadWifi but without CSMA/CD disable, 5/10 
mhz channel support, etc it was kinda pointless.  The separate TX/RX 
channels came as a crutch idea for CSMA/CD because you could tell the unit 
that it is recieving on a disconnected antenna for the transmitter unit (so 
it would never detect carrier).  In theory, it's basically like piping the 
raw wireless data directly into the eth0 interface.  Nothing else on the 
outdoor part, all of the intelligence is in the indoor portion of the unit.

Anyone like it?

- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Wyble" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] The nanostation thing


> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> In short, it was to create a open source platform for WISP use.   I 
>> called
>> it WISP-OS.   All the functions of routing, firewalling, dhcp client and
>> server, and all the other networking functions are out there and
>> consistently being improved in the open source community.
>
> Very true. See http://www.zeroshell.org/ for a fantastic turn key 
> solution.
>
>
>>   What, however,
>> is needed is not another implementation of routing or firewalls,
>
> Amen to that. :)
>
>> but deep
>> down fundamental efforts to improve the drivers for the common, cheap
>> chipsets.
>>
>
> Right. Madwifi  ( http://madwifi.org/ ) is pretty good but having
> trouble keeping up with new Atheros models.
>
>> I got several interested parties including developers and WISP's, but the
>> obstacle is the funding.
>>
>> The reason you need substantial funding:   The wireless driver holds the 
>> key
>> here.  You need the license from Atheros, and that alone is a serious 
>> chunk
>> of money.   We came up with a couple of viable methods of making the idea
>> work.   The driver development has to keep the Atheros sources closed, 
>> and
>> like other people have done, fundamental adjustment of the MAC would be 
>> the
>> ultimate function.
>>
>
> So what exactly are you referring to here which requires a license? The
> IP core? The HAL?
>
>> I saw this coming down the road when then software companies were moving
>> toward becoming a closed hardware/software platform.  The idea was to
>> produce a licensable driver that could be integrated into any new 
>> hardware
>> that might come down the pike, and put research into development of 
>> features
>> that could be universally shared.
>>
>
> Right. Like a large majority of open source projects solving horizontal
> market problems. :)
>> Right now, each developer has created their own 'non interoperable' 
>> feature
>> set.   So you want WiMax?   Great.  Only the basic feature set is
>> interoperable among all.
>>
>
> Yep.
>> Anyway, the purpose was to let WISP's guide the direction of development.
>> So, you want to use the cheap NanoStation?   No problem.  The open source
>> community has almost everything needed.  And each hardware platform could
>> have any/all advanced features.
>>
>> So, instead of Star-OS having great performance, but only with itself, 
>> same
>> with MikroTik, any hardware platform could share a full feature set.
>>
>
> Well to a certain extent software controls a lot of things, but

Re: [WISPA] Tower Climber Salary (insurance, etc.)

[Larry Yunker]

You raise two different questions here although it appears that everyone is
answering them as if one in the same.

1) What (private) insurance is required to legally employ climbers? 
2) What worker's compensation insurance is required to legally employ
climbers?

The answer to #1 is generally determined by two factors:

(a) your willingness to assume risk - insurance helps defer risk, but it is
rarely a complete shield against risk.  Your actual risk of loss is
determined largely by the form of your organization.  In most states, you
can organize as a general partnership, a limited partnership, a limited
liability partnership, a limited liability limited partnership, a limited
liability company, a subchapter S-corporation, or a subchapter
K-corporation.  Each provides a different level of protection for your
personal assets.  The effectiveness of your choice of organization will
depend on how well you follow the formalities expected by the government
when running a business.  If you are sloppy with bookkeeping, you mix
business and personal assets, if you under capitalize the business, etc. you
could face tort liability regardless of insurance.  At the extreme, without
proper business planning, you can place not only your business assets but
also your personal assets at risk.

and 

(b) your tower lease agreements.  Many towers will not allow you to put gear
up until you provide not only proof of insurance but also a binder showing
the tower owner as an additional insured on your policy.  

The answer to #2 is state specific.  Each state has its own worker's
compensation program.  In some cases, the program requires that your company
purchase worker's compensation insurance for employees and contractors.  In
some cases, the program requires that you purchase worker's compensation
from private insurance companies.  In some cases you just pay into a state
run insurance pool and don't pay private insurance companies.  Your first
step is to look into the worker's compensation agency in your state.  If the
rules seem too complicated or the clerks at the agency are less than helpful
or if you want further clarification, it's always a good idea to consult an
attorney (shameless plug ;).  The following web site has a good list of
worker's compensation agency information:

http://www.comp.state.nc.us/ncic/pages/all50.htm

Regards,
Larry Yunker
Network Consultant
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dylan Bouterse
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 8:25 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower Climber Salary (insurance, etc.)

If I could split off this topic to something very related. What
insurance/workers comp are being held to legally employ climbers? I'm
assuming two climbers minimum are on staff? We are getting to the point
where it would benefit us to have our own climbers but the decision
makers are intimidated by the logistics of keeping such a high risk
position on payroll. Suggestions?

Dylan

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John McDowell
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 12:34 AM
To: motorola; WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Tower Climber Salary

I'm looking for a replacement and have a fella on board I'm sending to
ComTrain.
What is a competitive climbing salary for someone just starting out?

-- 
John M. McDowell
Boonlink Communications
307 Grand Ave NW
Fort Payne, AL 35967
256.844.9932
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.boonlink.com






This message contains information which may be confidential and
privileged.
Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the
addressee),
you may not use, copy, re-transmit, or disclose to anyone the message or
any
information contained in the message. If you have received the message
in
error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
delete the message. E-mail communication is highly susceptible to
spoofing,
spamming, and other tampering, some of which may be harmful to your
computer. If you are concerned about the authenticity of the message or
the
source, please contact the sender directly.




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.0/1558 - Release Date:
7/17/2008 9:56 AM




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscrib

Re: [WISPA] The nanostation thing....

[Charles Wyble]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In short, it was to create a open source platform for WISP use.   I called 
> it WISP-OS.   All the functions of routing, firewalling, dhcp client and 
> server, and all the other networking functions are out there and 
> consistently being improved in the open source community. 

Very true. See http://www.zeroshell.org/ for a fantastic turn key solution.


>   What, however, 
> is needed is not another implementation of routing or firewalls, 

Amen to that. :)

> but deep 
> down fundamental efforts to improve the drivers for the common, cheap 
> chipsets.
>   

Right. Madwifi  ( http://madwifi.org/ ) is pretty good but having 
trouble keeping up with new Atheros models.

> I got several interested parties including developers and WISP's, but the 
> obstacle is the funding.
>
> The reason you need substantial funding:   The wireless driver holds the key 
> here.  You need the license from Atheros, and that alone is a serious chunk 
> of money.   We came up with a couple of viable methods of making the idea 
> work.   The driver development has to keep the Atheros sources closed, and 
> like other people have done, fundamental adjustment of the MAC would be the 
> ultimate function.
>   

So what exactly are you referring to here which requires a license? The 
IP core? The HAL?  

> I saw this coming down the road when then software companies were moving 
> toward becoming a closed hardware/software platform.  The idea was to 
> produce a licensable driver that could be integrated into any new hardware 
> that might come down the pike, and put research into development of features 
> that could be universally shared.
>   

Right. Like a large majority of open source projects solving horizontal 
market problems. :)
> Right now, each developer has created their own 'non interoperable' feature 
> set.   So you want WiMax?   Great.  Only the basic feature set is 
> interoperable among all.
>   

Yep.
> Anyway, the purpose was to let WISP's guide the direction of development. 
> So, you want to use the cheap NanoStation?   No problem.  The open source 
> community has almost everything needed.  And each hardware platform could 
> have any/all advanced features.
>
> So, instead of Star-OS having great performance, but only with itself, same 
> with MikroTik, any hardware platform could share a full feature set.
>   

Well to a certain extent software controls a lot of things, but 
hardware certainly plays a part. Better antennas, more ram/cpu, FPGA etc.
> This would require considerable funding, to do this development, but that 
> funding would be obtained from per-unit licensing scheme... something not 
> expensive per unit.   Also, since it mostly would be comprised of open 
> source software, the development for each new board or cpu could be done by 
> individuals or even small g roups or companies, and only the licensed, 
> closed wireless driver would have to be "paid" development.
>
> The initial cost for this could be born by 50 wisp's and be relatively 
> small.
>
> The largest initial obstacle is the Atheros license cost...
>
> But, this would spur movement toward much greater interoper

Again not sure what license  cost you are referring to. Any links or 
information you could provide would be of interest.

Thanks!

-- 
Charles Wyble (818) 280 - 7059
http://charlesnw.blogspot.com
CTO Known Element Enterprises / SoCal WiFI project




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

[WISPA] The nanostation thing....

[reader]

A year or two ago I had this idea that's related to our discussions...

In short, it was to create a open source platform for WISP use.   I called 
it WISP-OS.   All the functions of routing, firewalling, dhcp client and 
server, and all the other networking functions are out there and 
consistently being improved in the open source community.   What, however, 
is needed is not another implementation of routing or firewalls, but deep 
down fundamental efforts to improve the drivers for the common, cheap 
chipsets.

I got several interested parties including developers and WISP's, but the 
obstacle is the funding.

The reason you need substantial funding:   The wireless driver holds the key 
here.  You need the license from Atheros, and that alone is a serious chunk 
of money.   We came up with a couple of viable methods of making the idea 
work.   The driver development has to keep the Atheros sources closed, and 
like other people have done, fundamental adjustment of the MAC would be the 
ultimate function.

I saw this coming down the road when then software companies were moving 
toward becoming a closed hardware/software platform.  The idea was to 
produce a licensable driver that could be integrated into any new hardware 
that might come down the pike, and put research into development of features 
that could be universally shared.

Right now, each developer has created their own 'non interoperable' feature 
set.   So you want WiMax?   Great.  Only the basic feature set is 
interoperable among all.

Anyway, the purpose was to let WISP's guide the direction of development. 
So, you want to use the cheap NanoStation?   No problem.  The open source 
community has almost everything needed.  And each hardware platform could 
have any/all advanced features.

So, instead of Star-OS having great performance, but only with itself, same 
with MikroTik, any hardware platform could share a full feature set.

This would require considerable funding, to do this development, but that 
funding would be obtained from per-unit licensing scheme... something not 
expensive per unit.   Also, since it mostly would be comprised of open 
source software, the development for each new board or cpu could be done by 
individuals or even small g roups or companies, and only the licensed, 
closed wireless driver would have to be "paid" development.

The initial cost for this could be born by 50 wisp's and be relatively 
small.

The largest initial obstacle is the Atheros license cost...

But, this would spur movement toward much greater interoperability - or at 
least the possibility of greater interoperability.   So, while each hardware 
platform developer is re-inventing the wheel...  It would no longer need to 
be done...simply license a great set of features that are driven by the 
WISP's who guide the development...

As WiMax modules become more available, the same kind of driver/licensing 
system could be done for it, too.   The same economies of scale and 
competitive production could apply to WIMAX as they have done for the 802.11 
platform - specifically Atheros...

This empowers individual wisp's to become legal integrators, like the 
modular fcc approval has done for Star-OS and others.

Like I said, this idea is an old one for me, one I gave up on because nobody 
seemed to be interested, but it IS a viable notion and if this had been 
started back then, it would now be the key solution to much of the 
consternation now .









WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Jim Patient]

No Mike, not just our systems, any x86 system.  That is why we don't 
think they are ending x86 support any time soon.

The package is in testing now and hasn't been officially released.

Mikrotik continually works to improve the OS.  They normally respond 
well to bugs and fixes.  They take votes from users on feature 
requests.  You can vote at: 
http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/MikroTik_RouterOS/v3/Feature_Requests

Jim

Mike Hammett wrote:
> So let me get this right...  Instead of working on wireless drivers, 
> improving the existing feature set, stabilizing the whole router, etc. 
> Mikrotik has been working on making your router virtual server host?  Before 
> I complain directly to Mikrotik, could you point me to something official 
> saying that is out?
>
> Why don't they add on Media Center capability so I can store movies and TV 
> shows on my router and stream them to my XBox, or heck, let me plug in a TV 
> so I can play them directly from the router?
>
> Maybe they could just directly integrate with an XBox 360 and a DirecTV?
>
>
> --
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Jim Patient" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 8:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
>
>
>   
>> Spell checker must have got Dennis.  He meant Virtualization (Zen).  So
>> now you can have your router, Asterisk, billing, mail server, web server
>> all on one Mikrotik box.  Obviously it will take a beefy unit like the
>> PR 2282 to do this.
>>
>> Jim//
>>
>> Mike Hammett wrote:
>> 
>>> Visualization?
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message - 
>>> From: "Dennis Burgess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" 
>>> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 11:56 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   
 Very seriously doubt they will be dropping support for x86.  Seeing that
 they just introduced visualization only offered on the x86 platform!

 Scottie Arnett wrote:

 
> DD-WRT and OpenWRT pretty much already do this for quite a few 
> chipsets.
> They are not near the software as Mikrotik or StarOS is...but, if
> Mikrotikl drops support for x86, I would not be suprised if they or a 
> new
> project starts very quickly to serve that need.
>
> Scott
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Chuck McCown - 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: WISPA General List 
> Date:  Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:01:19 -0600
>
>
>
>   
>> I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this.
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "Japhy Bartlett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>> Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book..  Remember
>>> how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game?  How the company
>>> that wrote software for specific hardware lost - hard?
>>>
>>> For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a
>>> card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or
>>> something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary
>>> firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good
>>> code already written and being developed?
>>>
>>> Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed
>>> at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin.
>>> solution.  I.e., Windows and Apple.
>>>
>>> Look at how the PC market converged towards x86!  If Mikrotik or some
>>> of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market 
>>> into
>>> some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to
>>> "port" every stinking firmware flavor.
>>>
>>> Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful
>>> business model .. ever?
>>>
>>> And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, "well this 
>>> firmware
>>> does X better".  Is there anything particularly different between
>>> Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS?
>>>
>>> - japhy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   
 And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
 oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share 
 and
 having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
 Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see 
 Mikrotik
 supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
 hardware pretty much the sam

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Bryan Scott]

On Jul 20, 2008, at 11:00 AM, Gino Villarini wrote:

> Thay just need to add a couple of features to the t45...
>
> Better ethernet configuration options
>
> 5 10 40 channels support
>
> gino


DD-WRT has Ubiquity versions now.  Didn't have much luck with it as a  
client (on a NS5), but haven't tried it at the AP.

-- Bryan



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.

[Chuck McCown]

DSL is mostly gravy.  It gets shared through NECA in many cases, but it 
doesn't so much to support the local loop.
- Original Message - 
From: "Marlon K. Schafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 8:54 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.


> Well, not quite.
>
> A tarrifed pots line pays for the wire in the ground and the upkeep.
>
> DSL is gravy.
>
> Or did I miss something?
> marlon
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Chuck McCown - 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 7:53 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.
>
>
>> Not true.  Not true at all.  Cable Companies are not rate of return
>> regulated.  Every dollar they spend is below the line.  The ILECS are
>> strictly regulated as to what can be spent above the line.  Tarrifed 
>> rates
>> ONLY support tarrifed services.
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 11:52 PM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.
>>
>>
>>> Why not?
>>>
>>> Isn't that kinda what Cable Cos and ILECs Do?
>>>
>>> Tom DeReggi
>>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message - 
>>> From: "Chuck McCown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 2:37 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.
>>>
>>>
 The power company wants to take rate payer money and build a broadband
 network that will contact each meter for the purpose of managing 
 energy.
 It
 will also supply broadband to the homeowner if they want.  This should
 not
 be allowed.

 - Original Message - 
 From: "David E. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 To: "WISPA General List" 
 Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:34 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.


> Chuck McCown wrote:
>> Time to speak up.
>
> Anyone care to translate this for those among us who don't speak
> lawyerese, and who don't live/work in Indiana?
>
> David Smith
> MVN.net
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>



 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>> 
>>>
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.

[Marlon K. Schafer]

Well, not quite.

A tarrifed pots line pays for the wire in the ground and the upkeep.

DSL is gravy.

Or did I miss something?
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: "Chuck McCown - 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 7:53 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.


> Not true.  Not true at all.  Cable Companies are not rate of return
> regulated.  Every dollar they spend is below the line.  The ILECS are
> strictly regulated as to what can be spent above the line.  Tarrifed rates
> ONLY support tarrifed services.
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 11:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.
>
>
>> Why not?
>>
>> Isn't that kinda what Cable Cos and ILECs Do?
>>
>> Tom DeReggi
>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "Chuck McCown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 2:37 PM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.
>>
>>
>>> The power company wants to take rate payer money and build a broadband
>>> network that will contact each meter for the purpose of managing energy.
>>> It
>>> will also supply broadband to the homeowner if they want.  This should
>>> not
>>> be allowed.
>>>
>>> - Original Message - 
>>> From: "David E. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:34 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.
>>>
>>>
 Chuck McCown wrote:
> Time to speak up.

 Anyone care to translate this for those among us who don't speak
 lawyerese, and who don't live/work in Indiana?

 David Smith
 MVN.net


 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>> 
>>>
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Tower Climber Salary (insurance, etc.)

[Mike Hammett]

As with everything insurance related, make sure they know about everything 
it is that they do, but do your best to minimize exposure to the high cost 
policies.  You wouldn't want to leave out the fact that they climb towers 
twice a month and then have a tower related claim, which gets denied.


--
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 8:57 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower Climber Salary (insurance, etc.)


> Keep them classified as "general install technicians" that spend less than 
> 10% of their time on a tower (which is true for most WISPs)
>
> To have true workman's comp / insurance for full-time tower crews --  
> you're insurance bills will jump to the tens of thousands of 
>
> -Charles
>
>
> ---
> WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
> Coming to a City Near You
> http://www.winog.com
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
> Behalf Of Dylan Bouterse
> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 7:25 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower Climber Salary (insurance, etc.)
>
> If I could split off this topic to something very related. What
> insurance/workers comp are being held to legally employ climbers? I'm
> assuming two climbers minimum are on staff? We are getting to the point
> where it would benefit us to have our own climbers but the decision
> makers are intimidated by the logistics of keeping such a high risk
> position on payroll. Suggestions?
>
> Dylan
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of John McDowell
> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 12:34 AM
> To: motorola; WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] Tower Climber Salary
>
> I'm looking for a replacement and have a fella on board I'm sending to
> ComTrain.
> What is a competitive climbing salary for someone just starting out?
>
> --
> John M. McDowell
> Boonlink Communications
> 307 Grand Ave NW
> Fort Payne, AL 35967
> 256.844.9932
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> www.boonlink.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This message contains information which may be confidential and
> privileged.
> Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the
> addressee),
> you may not use, copy, re-transmit, or disclose to anyone the message or
> any
> information contained in the message. If you have received the message
> in
> error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
> delete the message. E-mail communication is highly susceptible to
> spoofing,
> spamming, and other tampering, some of which may be harmful to your
> computer. If you are concerned about the authenticity of the message or
> the
> source, please contact the sender directly.
>
>
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.0/1558 - Release Date:
> 7/17/2008 9:56 AM
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Travis Johnson]

I agree... and I actually emailed their support group last night before
this message even came out about the EXACT same thing... they seem
really hung up on adding new features instead of fixing or improving
the real issues.

Travis
Microserv

Mike Hammett wrote:

  So let me get this right...  Instead of working on wireless drivers, 
improving the existing feature set, stabilizing the whole router, etc. 
Mikrotik has been working on making your router virtual server host?  Before 
I complain directly to Mikrotik, could you point me to something official 
saying that is out?

Why don't they add on Media Center capability so I can store movies and TV 
shows on my router and stream them to my XBox, or heck, let me plug in a TV 
so I can play them directly from the router?

Maybe they could just directly integrate with an XBox 360 and a DirecTV?


--
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: "Jim Patient" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations


  
  
Spell checker must have got Dennis.  He meant Virtualization (Zen).  So
now you can have your router, Asterisk, billing, mail server, web server
all on one Mikrotik box.  Obviously it will take a beefy unit like the
PR 2282 to do this.

Jim//

Mike Hammett wrote:


  Visualization?


--
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: "Dennis Burgess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 11:56 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations



  
  
Very seriously doubt they will be dropping support for x86.  Seeing that
they just introduced visualization only offered on the x86 platform!

Scottie Arnett wrote:



  DD-WRT and OpenWRT pretty much already do this for quite a few 
chipsets.
They are not near the software as Mikrotik or StarOS is...but, if
Mikrotikl drops support for x86, I would not be suprised if they or a 
new
project starts very quickly to serve that need.

Scott

-- Original Message --
From: "Chuck McCown - 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: WISPA General List 
Date:  Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:01:19 -0600



  
  
I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this.

- Original Message - 
From: "Japhy Bartlett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations






  Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book..  Remember
how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game?  How the company
that wrote software for specific hardware lost - hard?

For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a
card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or
something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary
firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good
code already written and being developed?

Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed
at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin.
solution.  I.e., Windows and Apple.

Look at how the PC market converged towards x86!  If Mikrotik or some
of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market 
into
some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to
"port" every stinking firmware flavor.

Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful
business model .. ever?

And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, "well this 
firmware
does X better".  Is there anything particularly different between
Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS?

- japhy




  
  
And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share 
and
having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see 
Mikrotik
supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.



On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




  While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS.  I don't
understand
why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of 
hardware
giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40.  Hardware has to 
be
manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent.  If they 
are
already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not 
pick
up
the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional
cost.

People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even
with
an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a
compact
unit with

Re: [WISPA] Tower Climber Salary (insurance, etc.)

[Blake Bowers]

And DON'T have documentation where you show
them as tower climbers.

\
Don't take your organs to heaven,
heaven knows we need them down here!
Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today.

- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 8:57 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower Climber Salary (insurance, etc.)


> Keep them classified as "general install technicians" that spend less than 
> 10% of their time on a tower (which is true for most WISPs)
>
> To have true workman's comp / insurance for full-time tower crews --  
> you're insurance bills will jump to the tens of thousands of 
>
> -Charles
>
>
> ---
> WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
> Coming to a City Near You
> http://www.winog.com
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
> Behalf Of Dylan Bouterse
> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 7:25 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower Climber Salary (insurance, etc.)
>
> If I could split off this topic to something very related. What
> insurance/workers comp are being held to legally employ climbers? I'm
> assuming two climbers minimum are on staff? We are getting to the point
> where it would benefit us to have our own climbers but the decision
> makers are intimidated by the logistics of keeping such a high risk
> position on payroll. Suggestions?
>
> Dylan
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of John McDowell
> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 12:34 AM
> To: motorola; WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] Tower Climber Salary
>
> I'm looking for a replacement and have a fella on board I'm sending to
> ComTrain.
> What is a competitive climbing salary for someone just starting out?
>
> --
> John M. McDowell
> Boonlink Communications
> 307 Grand Ave NW
> Fort Payne, AL 35967
> 256.844.9932
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> www.boonlink.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This message contains information which may be confidential and
> privileged.
> Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the
> addressee),
> you may not use, copy, re-transmit, or disclose to anyone the message or
> any
> information contained in the message. If you have received the message
> in
> error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
> delete the message. E-mail communication is highly susceptible to
> spoofing,
> spamming, and other tampering, some of which may be harmful to your
> computer. If you are concerned about the authenticity of the message or
> the
> source, please contact the sender directly.
>
>
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.0/1558 - Release Date:
> 7/17/2008 9:56 AM
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Tower Climber Salary (insurance, etc.)

[Charles Wu]

Keep them classified as "general install technicians" that spend less than 10% 
of their time on a tower (which is true for most WISPs)

To have true workman's comp / insurance for full-time tower crews -- you're 
insurance bills will jump to the tens of thousands of 

-Charles


---
WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
Coming to a City Near You
http://www.winog.com


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dylan Bouterse
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 7:25 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower Climber Salary (insurance, etc.)

If I could split off this topic to something very related. What
insurance/workers comp are being held to legally employ climbers? I'm
assuming two climbers minimum are on staff? We are getting to the point
where it would benefit us to have our own climbers but the decision
makers are intimidated by the logistics of keeping such a high risk
position on payroll. Suggestions?

Dylan

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John McDowell
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 12:34 AM
To: motorola; WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Tower Climber Salary

I'm looking for a replacement and have a fella on board I'm sending to
ComTrain.
What is a competitive climbing salary for someone just starting out?

--
John M. McDowell
Boonlink Communications
307 Grand Ave NW
Fort Payne, AL 35967
256.844.9932
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.boonlink.com






This message contains information which may be confidential and
privileged.
Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the
addressee),
you may not use, copy, re-transmit, or disclose to anyone the message or
any
information contained in the message. If you have received the message
in
error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
delete the message. E-mail communication is highly susceptible to
spoofing,
spamming, and other tampering, some of which may be harmful to your
computer. If you are concerned about the authenticity of the message or
the
source, please contact the sender directly.




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/



WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.0/1558 - Release Date:
7/17/2008 9:56 AM



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Mike Hammett]

So let me get this right...  Instead of working on wireless drivers, 
improving the existing feature set, stabilizing the whole router, etc. 
Mikrotik has been working on making your router virtual server host?  Before 
I complain directly to Mikrotik, could you point me to something official 
saying that is out?

Why don't they add on Media Center capability so I can store movies and TV 
shows on my router and stream them to my XBox, or heck, let me plug in a TV 
so I can play them directly from the router?

Maybe they could just directly integrate with an XBox 360 and a DirecTV?


--
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: "Jim Patient" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations


> Spell checker must have got Dennis.  He meant Virtualization (Zen).  So
> now you can have your router, Asterisk, billing, mail server, web server
> all on one Mikrotik box.  Obviously it will take a beefy unit like the
> PR 2282 to do this.
>
> Jim//
>
> Mike Hammett wrote:
>> Visualization?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "Dennis Burgess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 11:56 PM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
>>
>>
>>
>>> Very seriously doubt they will be dropping support for x86.  Seeing that
>>> they just introduced visualization only offered on the x86 platform!
>>>
>>> Scottie Arnett wrote:
>>>
 DD-WRT and OpenWRT pretty much already do this for quite a few 
 chipsets.
 They are not near the software as Mikrotik or StarOS is...but, if
 Mikrotikl drops support for x86, I would not be suprised if they or a 
 new
 project starts very quickly to serve that need.

 Scott

 -- Original Message --
 From: "Chuck McCown - 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 Reply-To: WISPA General List 
 Date:  Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:01:19 -0600



> I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this.
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Japhy Bartlett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
>
>
>
>
>> Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book..  Remember
>> how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game?  How the company
>> that wrote software for specific hardware lost - hard?
>>
>> For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a
>> card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or
>> something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary
>> firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good
>> code already written and being developed?
>>
>> Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed
>> at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin.
>> solution.  I.e., Windows and Apple.
>>
>> Look at how the PC market converged towards x86!  If Mikrotik or some
>> of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market 
>> into
>> some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to
>> "port" every stinking firmware flavor.
>>
>> Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful
>> business model .. ever?
>>
>> And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, "well this 
>> firmware
>> does X better".  Is there anything particularly different between
>> Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS?
>>
>> - japhy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
>>> oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share 
>>> and
>>> having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
>>> Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see 
>>> Mikrotik
>>> supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
>>> hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
 While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS.  I don't
 understand
 why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of 
 hardware
 giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40.  Hardware has to 
 be
 manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent.  If they 
 are
 already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not 
 pick
 up
 the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional
 cost.

>>

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Jim Patient]

Spell checker must have got Dennis.  He meant Virtualization (Zen).  So 
now you can have your router, Asterisk, billing, mail server, web server 
all on one Mikrotik box.  Obviously it will take a beefy unit like the 
PR 2282 to do this.

Jim//

Mike Hammett wrote:
> Visualization?
>
>
> --
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Dennis Burgess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 11:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
>
>
>   
>> Very seriously doubt they will be dropping support for x86.  Seeing that
>> they just introduced visualization only offered on the x86 platform!
>>
>> Scottie Arnett wrote:
>> 
>>> DD-WRT and OpenWRT pretty much already do this for quite a few chipsets. 
>>> They are not near the software as Mikrotik or StarOS is...but, if 
>>> Mikrotikl drops support for x86, I would not be suprised if they or a new 
>>> project starts very quickly to serve that need.
>>>
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> -- Original Message --
>>> From: "Chuck McCown - 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Reply-To: WISPA General List 
>>> Date:  Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:01:19 -0600
>>>
>>>
>>>   
 I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this.

 - Original Message - 
 From: "Japhy Bartlett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 To: "WISPA General List" 
 Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations



 
> Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book..  Remember
> how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game?  How the company
> that wrote software for specific hardware lost - hard?
>
> For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a
> card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or
> something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary
> firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good
> code already written and being developed?
>
> Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed
> at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin.
> solution.  I.e., Windows and Apple.
>
> Look at how the PC market converged towards x86!  If Mikrotik or some
> of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into
> some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to
> "port" every stinking firmware flavor.
>
> Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful
> business model .. ever?
>
> And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, "well this firmware
> does X better".  Is there anything particularly different between
> Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS?
>
> - japhy
>
>
>
>   
>> And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
>> oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and
>> having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
>> Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik
>> supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
>> hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> 
>>> While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS.  I don't 
>>> understand
>>> why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware
>>> giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40.  Hardware has to be
>>> manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent.  If they are
>>> already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick 
>>> up
>>> the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional 
>>> cost.
>>>
>>> People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even 
>>> with
>>> an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a 
>>> compact
>>> unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 
>>> less
>>> than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure. 
>>> It
>>> would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.
>>>
>>> If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the 
>>> lowend
>>> market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
>>> would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware 
>>> as
>>> well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
>>> $40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
>>> network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
>>> manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
>>> especia

Re: [WISPA] Tower Climber Salary (insurance, etc.)

[Dylan Bouterse]

If I could split off this topic to something very related. What
insurance/workers comp are being held to legally employ climbers? I'm
assuming two climbers minimum are on staff? We are getting to the point
where it would benefit us to have our own climbers but the decision
makers are intimidated by the logistics of keeping such a high risk
position on payroll. Suggestions?

Dylan

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John McDowell
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 12:34 AM
To: motorola; WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Tower Climber Salary

I'm looking for a replacement and have a fella on board I'm sending to
ComTrain.
What is a competitive climbing salary for someone just starting out?

-- 
John M. McDowell
Boonlink Communications
307 Grand Ave NW
Fort Payne, AL 35967
256.844.9932
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.boonlink.com






This message contains information which may be confidential and
privileged.
Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the
addressee),
you may not use, copy, re-transmit, or disclose to anyone the message or
any
information contained in the message. If you have received the message
in
error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
delete the message. E-mail communication is highly susceptible to
spoofing,
spamming, and other tampering, some of which may be harmful to your
computer. If you are concerned about the authenticity of the message or
the
source, please contact the sender directly.




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.0/1558 - Release Date:
7/17/2008 9:56 AM



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

[Mike Hammett]

Visualization?


--
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: "Dennis Burgess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 11:56 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations


> Very seriously doubt they will be dropping support for x86.  Seeing that
> they just introduced visualization only offered on the x86 platform!
>
> Scottie Arnett wrote:
>> DD-WRT and OpenWRT pretty much already do this for quite a few chipsets. 
>> They are not near the software as Mikrotik or StarOS is...but, if 
>> Mikrotikl drops support for x86, I would not be suprised if they or a new 
>> project starts very quickly to serve that need.
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> -- Original Message --
>> From: "Chuck McCown - 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Reply-To: WISPA General List 
>> Date:  Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:01:19 -0600
>>
>>
>>> I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this.
>>>
>>> - Original Message - 
>>> From: "Japhy Bartlett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
>>>
>>>
>>>
 Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book..  Remember
 how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game?  How the company
 that wrote software for specific hardware lost - hard?

 For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a
 card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or
 something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary
 firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good
 code already written and being developed?

 Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed
 at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin.
 solution.  I.e., Windows and Apple.

 Look at how the PC market converged towards x86!  If Mikrotik or some
 of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into
 some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to
 "port" every stinking firmware flavor.

 Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful
 business model .. ever?

 And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, "well this firmware
 does X better".  Is there anything particularly different between
 Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS?

 - japhy



> And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
> oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and
> having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
> Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik
> supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
> hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.
>
>
>
> On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS.  I don't 
>> understand
>> why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware
>> giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40.  Hardware has to be
>> manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent.  If they are
>> already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick 
>> up
>> the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional 
>> cost.
>>
>> People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even 
>> with
>> an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a 
>> compact
>> unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 
>> less
>> than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure. 
>> It
>> would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.
>>
>> If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the 
>> lowend
>> market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
>> would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware 
>> as
>> well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
>> $40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
>> network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
>> manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
>> especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
>> really expressed and interest in working with them.
>>
>> Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is
>> interested...
>>
>> Sam Tetherow
>> Sandhills Wireless
>>
>> Matt Ferre wrote:
>>
>>> Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't
>>> exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clea