Re: [WISPA] 5.8Ghz Multi-point radios
Be careful that you dont cut your nose off to spite your face on the Trango issue! I also know Trango is a better product than Moto is more ways than one and Trango is going to be releasing a lower priced 5.x SU that will be very competitive with Moto as they have made some changes in the production of the external housing to allow a lower cost. I think they are going to implement a cheap plastic housing like Motorola? Mac Dearman Maximum Access, LLC. www.inetsouth.com www.radioresponse.org (Katrina relief efforts) 318-728-8600 - Rayville 318-728-9600 Matt Liotta wrote: We are looking to start deploying 5.8Ghz multi-point radios at some of our sites. I am hoping some folks on this list can share experiences and ideas on what radios might meet our needs. We have experimented with Canopy and Trango, but would really like some better choices. From a specification standpoint, Canopy general meets our needs, but we don't like being constrained on the antenna. We would like to use sectors bigger than 60 degrees and we would like to use horizontal polarization. We don't want to use Trango for no other reason than they can't work with distributors. We really like the flexibility on many 802.11a-based radios and certainly the price, but the contention aspects of the protocol and the perception of Wi-Fi being a consumer grade technology stop us from going that route. Any thoughts from the list? -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 5.8Ghz Multi-point radios
A better product is nice and all, but there is more to product selection than just price/performance. We have to take into account availability. With distributors we can rely on them to stock a product, so that when we need it in a short time frame it is available. Distributors provide other benefits as well that I am sure most on this list are aware of. With Trango's actions we simply can't buy from them. -Matt Mac Dearman wrote: Be careful that you dont cut your nose off to spite your face on the Trango issue! I also know Trango is a better product than Moto is more ways than one and Trango is going to be releasing a lower priced 5.x SU that will be very competitive with Moto as they have made some changes in the production of the external housing to allow a lower cost. I think they are going to implement a cheap plastic housing like Motorola? Mac Dearman Maximum Access, LLC. www.inetsouth.com www.radioresponse.org (Katrina relief efforts) 318-728-8600 - Rayville 318-728-9600 Matt Liotta wrote: We are looking to start deploying 5.8Ghz multi-point radios at some of our sites. I am hoping some folks on this list can share experiences and ideas on what radios might meet our needs. We have experimented with Canopy and Trango, but would really like some better choices. From a specification standpoint, Canopy general meets our needs, but we don't like being constrained on the antenna. We would like to use sectors bigger than 60 degrees and we would like to use horizontal polarization. We don't want to use Trango for no other reason than they can't work with distributors. We really like the flexibility on many 802.11a-based radios and certainly the price, but the contention aspects of the protocol and the perception of Wi-Fi being a consumer grade technology stop us from going that route. Any thoughts from the list? -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 5.8Ghz Multi-point radios
Hi Matt, I just wanted to chime in here and let you know that although we are not using distributors any more we are committed to providing excellent customer service and are striving to have all products on hand at all times. Typically as long as we receive orders before 3 pm PST, we can ship same day. Trango got its start as a direct sales company and we have found that using the direct model we are able to best respond to the needs of our customers. John Seaman Trango Broadband Wireless -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 7:53 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [SPAM-HC] - Re: [WISPA] 5.8Ghz Multi-point radios - Email has different SMTP TO: and MIME TO: fields in the email addresses A better product is nice and all, but there is more to product selection than just price/performance. We have to take into account availability. With distributors we can rely on them to stock a product, so that when we need it in a short time frame it is available. Distributors provide other benefits as well that I am sure most on this list are aware of. With Trango's actions we simply can't buy from them. -Matt Mac Dearman wrote: Be careful that you dont cut your nose off to spite your face on the Trango issue! I also know Trango is a better product than Moto is more ways than one and Trango is going to be releasing a lower priced 5.x SU that will be very competitive with Moto as they have made some changes in the production of the external housing to allow a lower cost. I think they are going to implement a cheap plastic housing like Motorola? Mac Dearman Maximum Access, LLC. www.inetsouth.com www.radioresponse.org (Katrina relief efforts) 318-728-8600 - Rayville 318-728-9600 Matt Liotta wrote: We are looking to start deploying 5.8Ghz multi-point radios at some of our sites. I am hoping some folks on this list can share experiences and ideas on what radios might meet our needs. We have experimented with Canopy and Trango, but would really like some better choices. From a specification standpoint, Canopy general meets our needs, but we don't like being constrained on the antenna. We would like to use sectors bigger than 60 degrees and we would like to use horizontal polarization. We don't want to use Trango for no other reason than they can't work with distributors. We really like the flexibility on many 802.11a-based radios and certainly the price, but the contention aspects of the protocol and the perception of Wi-Fi being a consumer grade technology stop us from going that route. Any thoughts from the list? -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 5.8Ghz Multi-point radios
John, I want to add, there is one thing that Trango can't offer today with a direct model, and that is local availabilty. For example, when I need to rush an order in today, I'm going to need to eat some hefty Overnight shipping fees. So Trango forfets profit margins that could be theirs or ours and gives it to UPS. It would be nice if Trango got a warehouse on the East coast sooner or later. However with that said, it just means that we East Coast WISPs have to plan better. I believe that the little extra planning/forecasting that we are going to have to do, is minimal compared to the added benefits of having direct communication with our manufacturer again and the new lower prices. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: John Seaman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 12:17 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 5.8Ghz Multi-point radios Hi Matt, I just wanted to chime in here and let you know that although we are not using distributors any more we are committed to providing excellent customer service and are striving to have all products on hand at all times. Typically as long as we receive orders before 3 pm PST, we can ship same day. Trango got its start as a direct sales company and we have found that using the direct model we are able to best respond to the needs of our customers. John Seaman Trango Broadband Wireless -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 7:53 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [SPAM-HC] - Re: [WISPA] 5.8Ghz Multi-point radios - Email has different SMTP TO: and MIME TO: fields in the email addresses A better product is nice and all, but there is more to product selection than just price/performance. We have to take into account availability. With distributors we can rely on them to stock a product, so that when we need it in a short time frame it is available. Distributors provide other benefits as well that I am sure most on this list are aware of. With Trango's actions we simply can't buy from them. -Matt Mac Dearman wrote: Be careful that you dont cut your nose off to spite your face on the Trango issue! I also know Trango is a better product than Moto is more ways than one and Trango is going to be releasing a lower priced 5.x SU that will be very competitive with Moto as they have made some changes in the production of the external housing to allow a lower cost. I think they are going to implement a cheap plastic housing like Motorola? Mac Dearman Maximum Access, LLC. www.inetsouth.com www.radioresponse.org (Katrina relief efforts) 318-728-8600 - Rayville 318-728-9600 Matt Liotta wrote: We are looking to start deploying 5.8Ghz multi-point radios at some of our sites. I am hoping some folks on this list can share experiences and ideas on what radios might meet our needs. We have experimented with Canopy and Trango, but would really like some better choices. From a specification standpoint, Canopy general meets our needs, but we don't like being constrained on the antenna. We would like to use sectors bigger than 60 degrees and we would like to use horizontal polarization. We don't want to use Trango for no other reason than they can't work with distributors. We really like the flexibility on many 802.11a-based radios and certainly the price, but the contention aspects of the protocol and the perception of Wi-Fi being a consumer grade technology stop us from going that route. Any thoughts from the list? -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- big dumb pipe provider vs. end-to-end connectivity/content provider
snip performance to their VOIP servers over our network. Think about it, do you think I'm going to allow the same performance to our competitive VOIP provider as I do to our own VOIP services? By getting us to be a Partner for them, we'd optimize them for our own benefit, and indirectly Comm Parnters would guarantee that our network /snip Not that I'm trying to start anything...but this is pretty dangerous ground to tread on If you think about it, an argument can be made that preference of one's own traffic (or depreffing competition traffic) is not that much different than FCC fines telco for VoIP Port Blocking http://informationweek.smallbizpipeline.com/60405214 SBC Says Google should pay to use our network http://techdirt.com/articles/20051031/0354228_F.shtml In a larger context, it may come down to a strategy of providing big dumb pipes (like what the phone companies have done) or becoming end-to-end connectivity/content companies (like what the cable-cos have done) -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz
John, Typically 4 sector base stations are built with either 5.3 or a licensed link as backhaul. With BreezeAccess VL, true data sector performance is 28 meg's in a 20 Mhz channel and half that in 10 Mhz Next firmware release is going to mid 30's in a 20 Mhz channel (again true data rates). I know of one sector that has 200 sub's attached although most sectors have less than 100. This customer looked at most manufacturer's gear and concluded Alvarion had the management feature sets, ease of batch processing for firmware uploads, obstructed NLOS for their application, and a host of other likes including Alvarion's support infrastructure. To be honest I don't think we have many Alvarion Operators that subscribe here but that doesn't mean there aren't a crap load of them out there which should be obviuos to everyone. Typically our Operators use Alvarion support Application Engineers and Alvarion web servers such as Mike Cowan's at ACC when needed. This could end up being a long dialog about the differences in operators, products, and ROI models but I won't go there. Brad -Original Message- From: John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 11:00 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Brad, Could you tell us more about what infrastructure is required to support the 2400 subscriber system you are referring to? How many tower locations, sectors per tower, backhaul used, etc.? This is interesting stuff for sure. I was wondering if we were ever going to hear any Alvarion stories here. I hear success stories on many different brand gear on the lists and I know people use Alvarion successfully but we rarely hear any stories about the systems. Is this Alvarion customer a member of this list server? I would love to hear from him also, or any other Alvarion based WISP for that matter, how their system performs in different conditions, scalability, etc. This is an open industry list and provided the information is used in a context of informing WISPs and is not a sales advertisement I would gladly listen to what you guys have to say about the VL platform. Brad, do you think this 2400 subscriber WISP operator would be interested in joining WISPA? We could use some input from more WISPs who are doing well. Thanks, Scriv Brad Larson wrote: Not all OFDM radios are created equally (especially PTMP). In many areas of NorthEast USA we have 1 mile radius's with eave mounted BreezeAccess VL Subscribers (5.8 Ghz) doing mod 6 which reflects a 10 meg true data rate. Typically these are obstructed NLOS links instead of going thru 1 mile of solid treelines. Rain/Ice does occasionally change mod levels but more than adequate data rates are achieved with this model. I have 2,400 subscribers (and growing) deployed in this fashion with one customer. Brad -Original Message- From: Blair Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 9:37 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz My practical tests show that 2.4GHz works better in a rural Near LosS environment. This is using 802.11b/g vs 802.11a. I have had no luck with 5.3/5.8GHz in a rural Near/Non LoS environment. On the other hand, 5.8Ghz seems to be fine at range in LoS conditions. Go figure. Paul Hendry wrote: Just noticed that the document also says that 5GHz is better for passing through damp tree areas than 2.4GHz as 2.4GHz is very close to the O-H frequency which water is full of and therefore water absorbs 2.4GHz signals considerably more than 5GHz. If this is true then why is 2.4GHz better for tree NLOS environments than 5GHz? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: 03 January 2006 11:48 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz I thought that was it but needed someone to clarify ;) What about 5GHz penetrating walls much better than 2.4GHz? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Delp Sent: 03 January 2006 11:44 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Paul, 5 GHz works NLOS in an urban environment. Bouncing around buildings, etc. Look at the success of Redline and Orthogon. OFDM and 5 GHz works well for them. An environment with trees is different. Trees absorb the signals, instead of bouncing them. Especially wet trees! We utilize 2.4 at every pop, mainly because of the low cost for deployment, and general coverage. We utilize 5 GHz frequently and also 900 MHz for NLOS issues. I hope this helps Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:44 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Ola everybody, I hope everyone had a great Christmas and New Year and are all ready for 2006, the year of the WISP :) When I have
RE: [WISPA] 5.8Ghz Multi-point radios
Matt, How much capacity do you need per 5.8 Ghz sector? Is this a business or residential rollout or both? How many subscribers per sector do you want to support? How large do you want to scale this network and is managment, batch firmware loads for radio updates, vlan tagging, voip support important to you? Brad -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 7:02 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] 5.8Ghz Multi-point radios We are looking to start deploying 5.8Ghz multi-point radios at some of our sites. I am hoping some folks on this list can share experiences and ideas on what radios might meet our needs. We have experimented with Canopy and Trango, but would really like some better choices. From a specification standpoint, Canopy general meets our needs, but we don't like being constrained on the antenna. We would like to use sectors bigger than 60 degrees and we would like to use horizontal polarization. We don't want to use Trango for no other reason than they can't work with distributors. We really like the flexibility on many 802.11a-based radios and certainly the price, but the contention aspects of the protocol and the perception of Wi-Fi being a consumer grade technology stop us from going that route. Any thoughts from the list? -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 5.8Ghz Multi-point radios
We want as much capacity as possible, but certainly 10Mbps minimum. This is for business customers only and we won't be oversubscribing the sectors, so there isn't a need to support many subscribers per sector. Not sure what you are asking in terms of scale, could you be more specific? VoIP will be used across the radio links however the traffic is encapsulated in MPLS. -Matt Brad Larson wrote: Matt, How much capacity do you need per 5.8 Ghz sector? Is this a business or residential rollout or both? How many subscribers per sector do you want to support? How large do you want to scale this network and is managment, batch firmware loads for radio updates, vlan tagging, voip support important to you? Brad -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 7:02 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] 5.8Ghz Multi-point radios We are looking to start deploying 5.8Ghz multi-point radios at some of our sites. I am hoping some folks on this list can share experiences and ideas on what radios might meet our needs. We have experimented with Canopy and Trango, but would really like some better choices. From a specification standpoint, Canopy general meets our needs, but we don't like being constrained on the antenna. We would like to use sectors bigger than 60 degrees and we would like to use horizontal polarization. We don't want to use Trango for no other reason than they can't work with distributors. We really like the flexibility on many 802.11a-based radios and certainly the price, but the contention aspects of the protocol and the perception of Wi-Fi being a consumer grade technology stop us from going that route. Any thoughts from the list? -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] 5.8Ghz Multi-point radios
Will this network be scaling to 10 subscribers in one town or 1,000 or more subscribers over many square miles? The more you scale may mean that features such as batch processing for easy firmware upgrades and other management features will save you money in the long run. Ongoing costs and radio features are seldom talked about when a question like yours is asked. X brand is cheaper may not be what you want or need to hear. Brad -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 2:44 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 5.8Ghz Multi-point radios We want as much capacity as possible, but certainly 10Mbps minimum. This is for business customers only and we won't be oversubscribing the sectors, so there isn't a need to support many subscribers per sector. Not sure what you are asking in terms of scale, could you be more specific? VoIP will be used across the radio links however the traffic is encapsulated in MPLS. -Matt Brad Larson wrote: Matt, How much capacity do you need per 5.8 Ghz sector? Is this a business or residential rollout or both? How many subscribers per sector do you want to support? How large do you want to scale this network and is managment, batch firmware loads for radio updates, vlan tagging, voip support important to you? Brad -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 7:02 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] 5.8Ghz Multi-point radios We are looking to start deploying 5.8Ghz multi-point radios at some of our sites. I am hoping some folks on this list can share experiences and ideas on what radios might meet our needs. We have experimented with Canopy and Trango, but would really like some better choices. From a specification standpoint, Canopy general meets our needs, but we don't like being constrained on the antenna. We would like to use sectors bigger than 60 degrees and we would like to use horizontal polarization. We don't want to use Trango for no other reason than they can't work with distributors. We really like the flexibility on many 802.11a-based radios and certainly the price, but the contention aspects of the protocol and the perception of Wi-Fi being a consumer grade technology stop us from going that route. Any thoughts from the list? -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 5.8Ghz Multi-point radios
We mostly serve MTUs, so we don't have that many subscribers that aren't managed by our MPLS network. Radio management is important, but much less important than for the folks doing a more traditional fixed wireless network. -Matt Brad Larson wrote: Will this network be scaling to 10 subscribers in one town or 1,000 or more subscribers over many square miles? The more you scale may mean that features such as batch processing for easy firmware upgrades and other management features will save you money in the long run. Ongoing costs and radio features are seldom talked about when a question like yours is asked. X brand is cheaper may not be what you want or need to hear. Brad -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 2:44 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 5.8Ghz Multi-point radios We want as much capacity as possible, but certainly 10Mbps minimum. This is for business customers only and we won't be oversubscribing the sectors, so there isn't a need to support many subscribers per sector. Not sure what you are asking in terms of scale, could you be more specific? VoIP will be used across the radio links however the traffic is encapsulated in MPLS. -Matt Brad Larson wrote: Matt, How much capacity do you need per 5.8 Ghz sector? Is this a business or residential rollout or both? How many subscribers per sector do you want to support? How large do you want to scale this network and is managment, batch firmware loads for radio updates, vlan tagging, voip support important to you? Brad -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 7:02 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] 5.8Ghz Multi-point radios We are looking to start deploying 5.8Ghz multi-point radios at some of our sites. I am hoping some folks on this list can share experiences and ideas on what radios might meet our needs. We have experimented with Canopy and Trango, but would really like some better choices. From a specification standpoint, Canopy general meets our needs, but we don't like being constrained on the antenna. We would like to use sectors bigger than 60 degrees and we would like to use horizontal polarization. We don't want to use Trango for no other reason than they can't work with distributors. We really like the flexibility on many 802.11a-based radios and certainly the price, but the contention aspects of the protocol and the perception of Wi-Fi being a consumer grade technology stop us from going that route. Any thoughts from the list? -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- big dumb pipe provider vs. end-to-end connectivity/content provider
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Charles Wu wrote: If you think about it, an argument can be made that preference of one's own traffic (or depreffing competition traffic) is not that much different than These are nowhere NEAR the same thing. Let me give an example. Let's say that my webserver is something I want to be considered priority over all other hosts on my network. I simply set up my QOS to make that traffic priority over ANY other traffic on my network. Same thing if it is a VOIP server. I am not changing the traffic in any way, nor am I restricting their traffic. I am simply insuring (as far as I can) the traffic that I want to be priority on MY network. That is not what happened with that other case (and you know this). If I do what I described above, can Google come in and sue me because THEIR web traffic is not prioritized on my network? Not at all. Having said that, if Google wants to come in and pay me $XXX (maybe a couple more X's), then you can BET that I WILL add priority to their traffic. Not sure how you see any kind of parallel between adding priority to one traffic and not another, vs blocking a certain class of traffic. FCC fines telco for VoIP Port Blocking http://informationweek.smallbizpipeline.com/60405214 -- Butch Evans BPS Networks http://www.bpsnetworks.com/ Bernie, MO Mikrotik Certified Consultant (http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Alvarion VL as a PtMP Platform
Is there a firmware upgrade path for WiMAX through the VL product line or is it a hardware change? Feel free to have someone contact me offlist for pricing information. I have a need for a PtMP system with more capacity than I have now with my current system. I do not know of many systems that meet the specs you list here and I already know many people are quite fond of the product. Maybe this time the price won't drive me away as has been the case in the past. Please do not take that as a slam. It is not. I know the quality is there and it is a matter of economics for me only that has ever kept me away from Alvarion products. You guys build good stuff and in some markets the price is easily recovered through ROI. Thanks, Scriv Brad Larson wrote: John, Typically 4 sector base stations are built with either 5.3 or a licensed link as backhaul. With BreezeAccess VL, true data sector performance is 28 meg's in a 20 Mhz channel and half that in 10 Mhz Next firmware release is going to mid 30's in a 20 Mhz channel (again true data rates). I know of one sector that has 200 sub's attached although most sectors have less than 100. This customer looked at most manufacturer's gear and concluded Alvarion had the management feature sets, ease of batch processing for firmware uploads, obstructed NLOS for their application, and a host of other likes including Alvarion's support infrastructure. To be honest I don't think we have many Alvarion Operators that subscribe here but that doesn't mean there aren't a crap load of them out there which should be obviuos to everyone. Typically our Operators use Alvarion support Application Engineers and Alvarion web servers such as Mike Cowan's at ACC when needed. This could end up being a long dialog about the differences in operators, products, and ROI models but I won't go there. Brad -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz
Trees are sponges -- there is no scatter with them That said, you're are causing yourself undue headache trying to do NLoS with 2.4 -- especially when 900 MHz is readily available -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:44 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Ola everybody, I hope everyone had a great Christmas and New Year and are all ready for 2006, the year of the WISP :) When I have setup wireless in an area it has always depended on the Geographic's of the area as to if we deploy 2.4GHz or 5GHz and I have always decided that 2.4 should be used where NLOS could be an issue. This decision has always been based on the fact that the lower frequency will pass through trees a lot easier however I have recently read a white paper that suggests otherwise. Basically the document says that the higher the frequency, the better the scatter (the ability to bounce of and around objects). It also says that 5GHz is better at penetrating walls. So my question is, have I been basing some of our deployments on false information or am I missing something here? I know that in tests I have seen a more stable signal at 2.4GHz in a NLOS environment but is this just a fluke? Cheers, P. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.11/219 - Release Date: 02/01/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Alvarion VL as a PtMP Platform
No firmware upgrade will be available and it's a different chipset on both base stations and cpe. But we'll support VL for a long time so you won't have to worry about a deployment getting canned. Brad -Original Message- From: John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 4:23 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Alvarion VL as a PtMP Platform Is there a firmware upgrade path for WiMAX through the VL product line or is it a hardware change? Feel free to have someone contact me offlist for pricing information. I have a need for a PtMP system with more capacity than I have now with my current system. I do not know of many systems that meet the specs you list here and I already know many people are quite fond of the product. Maybe this time the price won't drive me away as has been the case in the past. Please do not take that as a slam. It is not. I know the quality is there and it is a matter of economics for me only that has ever kept me away from Alvarion products. You guys build good stuff and in some markets the price is easily recovered through ROI. Thanks, Scriv Brad Larson wrote: John, Typically 4 sector base stations are built with either 5.3 or a licensed link as backhaul. With BreezeAccess VL, true data sector performance is 28 meg's in a 20 Mhz channel and half that in 10 Mhz Next firmware release is going to mid 30's in a 20 Mhz channel (again true data rates). I know of one sector that has 200 sub's attached although most sectors have less than 100. This customer looked at most manufacturer's gear and concluded Alvarion had the management feature sets, ease of batch processing for firmware uploads, obstructed NLOS for their application, and a host of other likes including Alvarion's support infrastructure. To be honest I don't think we have many Alvarion Operators that subscribe here but that doesn't mean there aren't a crap load of them out there which should be obviuos to everyone. Typically our Operators use Alvarion support Application Engineers and Alvarion web servers such as Mike Cowan's at ACC when needed. This could end up being a long dialog about the differences in operators, products, and ROI models but I won't go there. Brad -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- big dumb pipe provider vs.end-to-end connectivity/content provider
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Charles Wu wrote: If you take this line reasoning a few iterations further, it can easily become a that @[EMAIL PROTECTED] competitor is riding my network for free to access my customers, so I'm just gonna cut them off type of discussion Let me show you again what I responded to: If you think about it, an argument can be made that preference of one's own traffic (or depreffing competition traffic) is not that much different than You seem to be taking this beyond what anyone has stated. There may be those that say the things that you claim above, however what you said was that ...preference of one's own traffic...is not that much different than... and you went on to show a link to a story that was NOT EVEN CLOSE to the same thing. That is what I was pointing out. Not your few iterations further argument (which, BTW, I think is out of proportion, too). In other words, you are pointing out something to which I did not respond. You are defending something I am not attacking. -- Butch Evans BPS Networks http://www.bpsnetworks.com/ Bernie, MO Mikrotik Certified Consultant (http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- big dumb pipe providervs.end-to-end connectivity/content provider (html formatted for easier reading)
Title: Message snipYou seem to be taking this beyond what anyone has stated. There maybe those that say the things that you claim above, however what yousaid was that "...preference of one's own traffic...is not that muchdifferent than..." and you went on to show a link to a story thatwas NOT EVEN CLOSE to the same thing. That is what I was pointingout./snipFor some reason, I am getting a feeling that thread may be going beyond "topic debate" to "personal attacks" -- so I will restate my original point (which I may not have been completely clear on b/c this is a topic that I have been thinking of / examining for quite some time now, and things that seem obviously clear to me may not be so for a casual observer) Read the following article and tell me what you think http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/12/13/telecoms_want_their_products_to_travel_on_a_faster_internet/?page=full Now, Look back at the original topic of debate and ask yourself the following question...is there REALLY a distinction between the "prioritization" and/or "discrimination (or blocking taken to the Nth degree) of certain types of Internet packets? If you think about it, prioritizing "certain my preferred packets" across my physical network is really no different than discriminating (depreferencing or blocking) my competitors -- in fact, the Network Neutrality (free love, etc) camp would argue that "allowing" certain providers to pay for prioritized / privilege access is extortion. The topic of debate that I am addressing is the argument between "it's my @[EMAIL PROTECTED] network so I can do whatever I want" vs. "the Internet is a free and open medium or Network Neutrality). The it's my @[EMAIL PROTECTED] network argumentSBC started it, now BellSouth is getting into the act. Two articles (1, 2) highlight comments made by William L. Smith, CTO of BellSouth, about how hed really like to be able to charge internet companies for priority access to his network and customers.A senior telecommunications executive said yesterday that Internet service providers should be allowed to strike deals to give certain Web sites or services priority in reaching computer users, a controversial system that would significantly change how the Internet operates.William L. Smith, chief technology officer for Atlanta-based BellSouth Corp., told reporters and analysts that an Internet service provider such as his firm should be able, for example, to charge Yahoo Inc. for the opportunity to have its search site load faster than that of Google Inc.Or, Smith said, his company should be allowed to charge a rival voice-over-Internet firm so that its service can operate with the same quality as BellSouths offering.Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge Network Neutrality is the concept that network operators provide free and non-discriminatory transport on their networks between the endpoints of the Internet. This has been a basic concept and function of the Internet since it was invented, and is adopted by the FCC in these four principles to ensure that broadband networks are widely deployed, open, affordable and accessible to all consumers: 1. Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet contentof their choice; 2. Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement; 3. Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devicesthat do not harm the network; and 4. Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers. Now, lets open the floor for discussion... -Charles---CWLabTechnology Architectshttp://www.cwlab.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL as a PtMP Platform
The only product on the market today that will have backwards compatibility to wimax where a cpe can talk to a wimax base station is Aperto. Additionally, Alvarion will not be one of the first round products certified for wimax, Airspan and Aperto however, will be. - Jeff On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 15:22:30 -0600, John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Is there a firmware upgrade path for WiMAX through the VL product line or is it a hardware change? Feel free to have someone contact me offlist for pricing information. I have a need for a PtMP system with more capacity than I have now with my current system. I do not know of many systems that meet the specs you list here and I already know many people are quite fond of the product. Maybe this time the price won't drive me away as has been the case in the past. Please do not take that as a slam. It is not. I know the quality is there and it is a matter of economics for me only that has ever kept me away from Alvarion products. You guys build good stuff and in some markets the price is easily recovered through ROI. Thanks, Scriv Brad Larson wrote: John, Typically 4 sector base stations are built with either 5.3 or a licensed link as backhaul. With BreezeAccess VL, true data sector performance is 28 meg's in a 20 Mhz channel and half that in 10 Mhz Next firmware release is going to mid 30's in a 20 Mhz channel (again true data rates). I know of one sector that has 200 sub's attached although most sectors have less than 100. This customer looked at most manufacturer's gear and concluded Alvarion had the management feature sets, ease of batch processing for firmware uploads, obstructed NLOS for their application, and a host of other likes including Alvarion's support infrastructure. To be honest I don't think we have many Alvarion Operators that subscribe here but that doesn't mean there aren't a crap load of them out there which should be obviuos to everyone. Typically our Operators use Alvarion support Application Engineers and Alvarion web servers such as Mike Cowan's at ACC when needed. This could end up being a long dialog about the differences in operators, products, and ROI models but I won't go there. Brad -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Alvarion VL as a PtMP Platform
Jeff, In what Frequency? There is allot of BS out there in the first wave of testing for those that have yet to get a product to market. We can discuss if you would like? Brad -Original Message- From: jeffrey thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 8:29 PM To: WISPA General List; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL as a PtMP Platform The only product on the market today that will have backwards compatibility to wimax where a cpe can talk to a wimax base station is Aperto. Additionally, Alvarion will not be one of the first round products certified for wimax, Airspan and Aperto however, will be. - Jeff On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 15:22:30 -0600, John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Is there a firmware upgrade path for WiMAX through the VL product line or is it a hardware change? Feel free to have someone contact me offlist for pricing information. I have a need for a PtMP system with more capacity than I have now with my current system. I do not know of many systems that meet the specs you list here and I already know many people are quite fond of the product. Maybe this time the price won't drive me away as has been the case in the past. Please do not take that as a slam. It is not. I know the quality is there and it is a matter of economics for me only that has ever kept me away from Alvarion products. You guys build good stuff and in some markets the price is easily recovered through ROI. Thanks, Scriv Brad Larson wrote: John, Typically 4 sector base stations are built with either 5.3 or a licensed link as backhaul. With BreezeAccess VL, true data sector performance is 28 meg's in a 20 Mhz channel and half that in 10 Mhz Next firmware release is going to mid 30's in a 20 Mhz channel (again true data rates). I know of one sector that has 200 sub's attached although most sectors have less than 100. This customer looked at most manufacturer's gear and concluded Alvarion had the management feature sets, ease of batch processing for firmware uploads, obstructed NLOS for their application, and a host of other likes including Alvarion's support infrastructure. To be honest I don't think we have many Alvarion Operators that subscribe here but that doesn't mean there aren't a crap load of them out there which should be obviuos to everyone. Typically our Operators use Alvarion support Application Engineers and Alvarion web servers such as Mike Cowan's at ACC when needed. This could end up being a long dialog about the differences in operators, products, and ROI models but I won't go there. Brad -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- big dumb pipe providervs.end-to-end connectivity/content provider (html formatted for easier reading)
The way I see it is this: (automatic insertion of my .o2 cents) If Bell South can charge people extra for added services I can too. You pay extra for call waiting, call forwarding, call blocking...etc - - - you pay extra on my internet service to have me give your VoIP packets prioritization! My packet prioritization is an extra added value service that I am not required to do - I offer it as a service to my PAYING clients. beating chest flailing arms wildly :-P Mac Dearman Maximum Access, LLC. www.inetsouth.com www.radioresponse.org (Katrina relief efforts) 318-728-8600 - Rayville 318-728-9600 Butch Evans wrote: On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Charles Wu wrote: For some reason, I am getting a feeling that thread may be going beyond topic debate to personal attacks -- so I will restate my If you are referring to my comment, you are missing the point. I am not, in any way, attacking you personally. I am simply saying that you are overstating what I see others saying. If you take it personally, you should re-read what I posted. Read the following article and tell me what you think http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/12/13/telecoms_want_ their_products_to_travel_on_a_faster_internet/?page=full I'm not certain what you want to know. Personally (and this is probably not a popular opinion here), I think that if the network operator has the ability to offer a premium network service, they should be allowed to do that. I believe that I, as a network operator, should be allowed the same freedom. At the same time, I think that there should be NO PUBLIC MONEY involved in the pool here. Now, Look back at the original topic of debate and ask yourself the following question...is there REALLY a distinction between the prioritization and/or discrimination (or blocking taken to the Prioritization of X is NOT discrimination of not X. THAT is the point I was making before. No matter how many times you say it, or how many ways you put it, it does not change a simple fact. Nth degree) of certain types of Internet packets? If you think Blocking on the other hand IS discrimination. For instance, I block LOTS of traffic. I block ALL traffic to and from known hacker havens. I do not accept mail from certain servers. I only allow certain volumes of P2P traffic to flow over my network. These things enhance my service for my subscribers. I have a few customers who have opted to move on to other ISPs as a result of these decisions. That is their choice, and in the end, it benefits my remaining subs all the more. The fact is, there has been customer movement in both directions. I have moved several customer ONTO my network for the same reason others have left. about it, prioritizing certain my preferred packets across my physical network is really no different than discriminating (depreferencing or blocking) my competitors -- in fact, the Network Neutrality (free love, etc) camp would argue that allowing certain providers to pay for prioritized / privilege access is Ok..now it's time for a personal attack. Those guys are KOOKS. The topic of debate that I am addressing is the argument between it's my @[EMAIL PROTECTED] network so I can do whatever I want vs. the Internet is a free and open medium or Network Neutrality). I have no problem with this debate. I think it is a silly debate, but there are others who will argue this till they are blue in the face. I don't have time to do that, so I will most likely bow out and watch from afar, as I have been doing. SBC started it, now BellSouth is getting into the act. Two articles (1, 2) highlight comments made by William L. Smith, CTO of BellSouth, about how he'd really like to be able to charge internet companies for priority access to his network and customers. While I believe SBC (and BS -- Is it just me, or does THIS abbreviation belong with ALL the RBOCs?) would be shooting themselves in the foot, they ought to be free to attempt to do this. Again, they should be held accountable for what they have built with PUBLIC MONEY. Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge KOOKS! I can only agree with about 25% of what they say. Even that is a liberal guess. Here are my retorts to the KOOK statements. 1. Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice; Consumers are entitled to a free choice in a free market to decide which network operator offers them the best bang for their buck. 2. Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement; Consumers are entitled to a free choice in a free market to decide which network operator offers them the best bang for their buck. 3. Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and Consumers are entitled to a free choice in a free market to decide which network operator
Re: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- big dumb pipeprovidervs.end-to-endconnectivity/content provider (html formatted for easier reading)
I am not too concerned. It is only about $40K a month in recurring monthly revenues off the SBC network! :-)I do worry what the phone company will do but I am nearly making as much off of wireless now as I am off the ILEC copper so in a year or so I could snip snip the little copper habit I still have going on. Right now I would obviously suffer some serious withdrawal. By the way, I resisted the DSL temptation completely. I do not have a single DSL on my billing. I do have a few T1s and several hundred dialup connections. I tend to think the tariff regulated services will be around for a while yet. Maybe it is wishful thinking on my part? Scriv However, there are a lot of people out there (for example Scrivner) that are still dependent on the local ILEC for a lot of services (for example, accessing copper to offer dial-up, DSL, T1 or a slew of other connectivity solutions. In his case, there is a concern because he stands to lose a significant amount of business should the ILEC get the ability to arbitrarily cut him off On the extreme side, one CLEC, XO, seeing this situation, has decided to ditch the UNE access business and focus exclusively on wireless (old news): http://www.networkworld.com/news/2005/110805-xo-spinoff.html -Charles --- WiNOG Austin, TX March 13-15, 2006 http://www.winog.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- big dumb pipeprovidervs.end-to-endconnectivity/content provider (html formatted for easier reading)
John Scrivner wrote: I am not too concerned. It is only about $40K a month in recurring monthly revenues off the SBC network! :-)I do worry what the phone company will do but I am nearly making as much off of wireless now as I am off the ILEC copper so in a year or so I could snip snip the little copper habit I still have going on. Right now I would obviously suffer some serious withdrawal. By the way, I resisted the DSL temptation completely. I do not have a single DSL on my billing. I do have a few T1s and several hundred dialup connections. I tend to think the tariff regulated services will be around for a while yet. Maybe it is wishful thinking on my part? Scriv Not wishful thinking. 2+ years ago we switched away from Qwest, our ILEC, to competitive clecs and dumped DSL and T-1. Wasn't enough T-1's and what we did have we converted to wireless. We had a fiber OC3 from Qwest. And support wise, DSL was almost as bad as dial up. Now the only bill I get from a telephone company, is from clecs, and that is for a few pots for our office and a managed modem pool from another clec, and the voip service naturally isn't Qwest. My upstream is a regional fiber carrier who delivers me fiber ethernet. Our broadband is all wireless and we'll be adding pretty soon. Significant savings in avoiding the ILEC. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 5.8Ghz Multi-point radios
Matt, I've talked to quite a few people who are looking at Tranzeo CPE/StarOS APs for 5.3/5.8Ghz multipoint deployments and have had good luck myself so far. The combination of StarOS AP units and Tranzeo CPE units seems to work fairly well. Within a 5 mile radius, you will probably be able to maintain 15-20meg of throughput and 40-50 subs per sector depending on the size of the pipes that you deliver to the customers. StarOS can handle batch firmware uploads, routing at the AP, bandwidth control at the AP, vlan tagging, OSFP/RIP routing, DNS at the AP, QOS and packet shaping for VOIP and other traffic and it also has great troubleshooting information along with hooks into several of the open source monitoring and traffic graphing systems. Another plus is that it will run on several hardware combinations, so you can choose the type of radio/sbc platform that best suits your needs. The Tranzeo CPE units are inexpensive ($225-$300), easy to install and work great with StarOS. If you go with an all StarOS system, my understanding is that the new version (v3) will also have the ability to use 5mhz, 10mhz and 20mhz channels and will be ready for 5.4Ghz with no need for additional hardware changes. It also works in the 4.9Ghz public safety spectrum. We provide the backhaul for several video feeds for the local law enforcement on 4.9 - works great. I think that is a combination worth considering. Matt Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brad Larson wrote: Matt, How much capacity do you need per 5.8 Ghz sector? Is this a business or residential rollout or both? How many subscribers per sector do you want to support? How large do you want to scale this network and is managment, batch firmware loads for radio updates, vlan tagging, voip support important to you? Brad -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 7:02 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] 5.8Ghz Multi-point radios We are looking to start deploying 5.8Ghz multi-point radios at some of our sites. I am hoping some folks on this list can share experiences and ideas on what radios might meet our needs. We have experimented with Canopy and Trango, but would really like some better choices. From a specification standpoint, Canopy general meets our needs, but we don't like being constrained on the antenna. We would like to use sectors bigger than 60 degrees and we would like to use horizontal polarization. We don't want to use Trango for no other reason than they can't work with distributors. We really like the flexibility on many 802.11a-based radios and certainly the price, but the contention aspects of the protocol and the perception of Wi-Fi being a consumer grade technology stop us from going that route. Any thoughts from the list? -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
