Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
great point! :) Scott Reed wrote: Who says the L in DSL must be Line? Call it Digital Subsciber Link and it works for the customer and uses our normal language for the radio connection. Scott Reed Owner NewWays Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration www.nwwnet.net http://www.nwwnet.net/ *-- Original Message ---* From: Rick Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 00:39:48 -0400 Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband We find we can NOT sell our service as Wireless Broadband As soon as we market it to customers as DSL or just plain High Speed Internet, we start scoring. Too many in this area have been educated against Open WIFI being BAD... The cable we install to the radio is a line, right ? It carries digital signals, right ? It allows our customer to become a subscriber, right ? DSL... ;) KyWiFi LLC wrote: I'm noticing more and more WISP's selling their wireless broadband service as DSL or Wireless DSL. I know that 75% of the people who call our sales number have a difficult time understanding what Wireless Broadband is. They already know what DSL is and that is what the majority of them ask for so I would be interested in hearing everyone's opinions on the pros and cons of a WISP labeling their wireless broadband service as DSL, wDSL or Wireless DSL instead of Fixed Wireless, WiFI or Wireless Broadband. If the masses are more familiar with the term DSL then I think we would generate more sales leads by advertising our (WISPs') broadband as DSL instead of Wireless Broadband. I'm sure the local telco would just love to see all of us selling DSL. Are there any legalities to this? Does wireless broadband qualify as DSL or a form of DSL in the eyes of the law? Is it legal for a WISP to sell their wireless broadband service as DSL? Sincerely, Shannon D. Denniston, Co-Founder KyWiFi, LLC - Mt. Sterling, Kentucky http://www.KyWiFi.com http://www.kywifi.com/ http://www.KyWiFiVoice.com http://www.kywifivoice.com/ Phone: 859.274.4033 A Broadband Phone Internet Provider == Wireless Broadband, Local Calling and UNLIMITED Long Distance only $69! No Taxes, No Regulatory Fees, No Hassles FREE Site Survey: http://www.KyWiFi.com http://www.kywifi.com/ == -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ *--- End of Original Message ---* -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
We conducted a few focus groups here. Most of the attendees were in the 18-24 yr. age bracket. It was amazing how many didn't identify with the word broadband. The words they responded to best were 'high speed internet Wireless was way down the list. Too much confusion with cellular. That said, I think wireless will hold its own as a marketing term eventually. Wireless is the sexy new darling of the world. It will be worth trading on the word eventually. The other part of this is that we are building brands as wireless providers, so it makes sense to keep that in the mix until the world catches up. In 95-96 I was out trying to sell people on the words internet, email and website. Those words didn't register then but they are now a permanent part of the American lexicon and in the American brain. The word wireless and what it represents will eventually do the same. chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:13 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Agreed excellent point (wireless scares and confuses people), except Why associate your service with DSL, a low grade $39 a month service, as advertized by Verizon? Why not associate it with T1 or just Broadband, higher quality services? If you associate it with DSL, then your are also associating it with the same quality and price. They think you are ripping them off charging $150 a month when they can get it for $39 a month down the street. When in accuality you are saving them 70% off their T1 line. Let me share a case that happened just yesterday. I got a call for DSL, they currently had voip and data on a T1, and they were looking for a DSL line to transfer the Internet Data to, to free up bandwidth on their T1 for their VOIP. It was a 15 minute close over the phone, since we had the MTU building lit, and represented we could have their new circuit installed the following day. I represented we were selling broadband, a T1 replacement. I made the mistake of leavingthe labeling of the contract heading as Wireless Broadband Agreement. The customer saw Wireless and didn;t sign, and asked to cancel order. I'm now likely going to win the client back, after most of yesterday on the phone answering questions from everyone under the sun. The problem was the customers computer consultant, had used Wireless in Texas, and had nothing but troubles. He stated tons of Lightning related electrical problem that disrupted service regularly. (It was a Wifi service he was using, there.) The question they asked me was, why is my service able to compare againt T1 apposed to DSL, to justify the higher price? They looked at it as a lower grade service. My solution however, was a high end service. It was an Engineered 30 mbps TDD 4 mile link with a Direct path from the building to my core fiber peering point. I even have fiber in the building at $500, but don't use it, because the fiber has 4-5 hops to my transit location compared to my wireless that is a direct shot and bypasses many points of failure. I'll probably still get the business but after much sales agrevation and providing a good number of references. So its a valid point that Wireless does still scare some people. And Poor quality Wireless providers ruin the rep for the good quality WISPs. But my bigger point is that some customers actually think DSL is more reliable than an engineered wireless link used to replace Fiber and T1s. So branding Wireless as DSL, does not helpthe industry, it lowers the value of what we do. I've been plaqued by this problem, as my company name is... RapidDSL. It gets me the leads, but it also starts every sales call out with why I'm charging more than $50 a month for my service, that I generally get $150-$500 a month for. We now market our service as Broadband period. It has made all the difference. We don't lie about using wireless, its plastered all over our website. But why advertise something that just confuses everyone and costs everyone time to sort out. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Rick Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 8:55 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband great point! :) Scott Reed wrote: Who says the L in DSL must be Line? Call it Digital Subsciber Link and it works for the customer and uses our normal language for the radio connection. Scott Reed Owner NewWays Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration www.nwwnet.net http://www.nwwnet.net/ *-- Original Message ---* From: Rick Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 00:39:48 -0400 Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband We find we can NOT sell our
RE: [WISPA] Tranzeo AP
Title: Message We have them all over the place and they are great.We use them onMDU/MTU deployments, residential, schools, and whole towns and they work very well. The duel ethernet ports give you so many options to use them for. For instance you can do a wireless backhaul to another cell site and use the extra port to setup cameras or 2.4 hotspots. Just let your imagination go. They have been very solid for us. We did have a small lockup issue but that was fixed with a firmware upgrade. Just my $.02. W.L. EdwardsCEORNet CommunicationsOffice 765-342-3554Fax 765-349-4880"Destiny is not a matter of chance; it is a matter of choice. It is not a thing to be waited for; it is a thing to be achieved." -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of chris cooperSent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 9:20 AMTo: 'WISPA General List'Subject: [WISPA] Tranzeo AP Has anyone used the tranzeo 5.3-5.8 integrated units in AP mode? If so, could you share your thoughts? Thanks, Chris Cooper Intelliwave -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Alvarion -Wifi chipset still allows for highend product
Charles, After missing the backhaul bash this year, we had to perform our own locally. One of the products we tested was the Alvarion VL B28. Its important to note, that the use of the Atheros Wifi chipset in the radio was NOT a negative with the product. The Alvarion had excellent performance for many reasons. Basically our finding was that the Alvarion VL, was able to reduce the antenna size by 1 size, on both ends of a Point to point, to get equal quality as competiors radios tested. Basically a 2 foot dish on both end with Alvarion, performed similarly to 3 ft dish on each end with the competitor products. The Alvarion with same antenna specs as others tested, possessed the following traits... Higher Link RSSI. Lower SNR. Able to operate at extra high RSSI levels, without distortion or additional noise generated to degrade link. Therefore less packet loss on UDP tests and able to sustain operation in a noisy environment. This is before we ever start to consider extra firmware features that give operator's good control over the link. I gave Alvarion two thumbs up, for a backhaul solution, where it was acceptable to limit flexibility, and have a radio that could be hard set on a frequency range (For example 5.8 apposed to 5.3 or vice versa), and fixed install on a specific polarity. My understanding is making radios that were only 1 specif freq range allowed betterfilters to be used for that specific frequency of the radio. The arguement I make is, if I can save $2000 by using 2 ft dishes instead of 3 ft dishes, it easily justifies Alvarion's price. We tested the Alvarion to push 20 mbps UDP throughput with less than .5% packet loss in the test environment, which had a lot of noise, and other radios could not generate packetlossless links without a dish size upgrade. We only identified two negatives. 1) The AP side of the link is more difficult to align, as it does not get an RSSI or SNR reading unless associated from the AP side. Alvarion does provide tools to get this data, via a script that runs on a PC, querying SNR, while moving to gain association, that is helpful. But really the AP side needs to be pretty well eyeballed starting out, so the aligning can easilly be done from the SU side, and then fine tuned after by theAP side of PtP. 2) The Adaptie modulation MUST be turned off for UDP throughput tests to work well in noisy environments. We were unable to get good packetlossless UDP tests above 5 mbps, while adaptive modulation was on. However, take note that this very well may be the case with many Radio brands and UDP, as the UDP stream does not stop, while Modulation changes, and speed temporarilly slows. For the specifc test site, we ended up using Trango Atlas for the link with 3 ft dishes. The reason is that we only had two channels that were usable, one was verticle and the other was horizontal. We wanted to maintain the polarity change on the fly options, when so few free channels were there. Plus, using the 3 ft dishes the Trango was able to deliver 36 mbps UDP throughput with less than .5% packetloss using the 3 ft Dishes. However, the Trango was unusable with 2 ft dishes. Take note, the reason we needed 3 ft dishes with the Trango, is it gave us more headroom, and to get a good link, we had to lower the radio transmit power by 4 db on each side. Running at full 18 db caused distortion of the signal and packetloss on this specific link. (note: in a lab enviroment without noise, we were able to use Trango at full power with no degregation.) Take note, I did not test the Alvarion with 3 ft dishes, and can not respond with its performance in that configuration. However, I was told by Alvarion that 24 mbps was its top possible speed at this time, but firmware enhancements are on the way that will supposedly increase throughput a great deal (I believe by around 10 mbps but don't quote me). I believe Alvarion's claim, that this will happen, they have great engineers and general deliver what they say. However, its not here today, so I can not report that as of today. My point is that there is more to a radio than the Chipset. The chipset is just $30 of the cost of the device solution. Alvarion proved that without a doubt, by their enhancements. One of the most important things for a WISP to accomplish to gain customer approval, is to use non-standards based solutions, for security reasons. They don;t want any radio off the street to be able to connect and hear your traffic, to ease the ability to sniff and hack. So I see no problem with wifi chipsets for commerical deployment as long as the radios use their own MACs, that do not allow other Wifi brands to associate and connect. WiMax, could offer a big negative, by adding interoperabilty, at a low cost, and accessable by anyone with an off the shelf product. Sure their are encryption protocols at the radio level, but still thats not always enough to
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
Very well stated, Tom. I think there may reason to make some market distinction. In the part of rural Indiana I live in, servicing residential customers with wireless DSL is probably not bad marketing. Selling it that way to most businesses would not be so beneficial, especially when doing the type of service you describe. So, if a prospective residential asks about DSL, yeah, we do that, just without wires. If a business wants true T1 or similar replacement, I am not going to sell them DSL, I am going to sell them a T1 replacement. Marketing, marketing, it's all about the customer's perception, as I beleive Tom has pointed out in previous posts as well. Scott Reed Owner NewWays Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration www.nwwnet.net -- Original Message --- From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 10:13:10 -0400 Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Agreed excellent point (wireless scares and confuses people), except Why associate your service with DSL, a low grade $39 a month service, as advertized by Verizon? Why not associate it with T1 or just Broadband, higher quality services? If you associate it with DSL, then your are also associating it with the same quality and price. They think you are ripping them off charging $150 a month when they can get it for $39 a month down the street. When in accuality you are saving them 70% off their T1 line. Let me share a case that happened just yesterday. I got a call for DSL, they currently had voip and data on a T1, and they were looking for a DSL line to transfer the Internet Data to, to free up bandwidth on their T1 for their VOIP. It was a 15 minute close over the phone, since we had the MTU building lit, and represented we could have their new circuit installed the following day. I represented we were selling broadband, a T1 replacement. I made the mistake of leavingthe labeling of the contract heading as Wireless Broadband Agreement. The customer saw Wireless and didn;t sign, and asked to cancel order. I'm now likely going to win the client back, after most of yesterday on the phone answering questions from everyone under the sun. The problem was the customers computer consultant, had used Wireless in Texas, and had nothing but troubles. He stated tons of Lightning related electrical problem that disrupted service regularly. (It was a Wifi service he was using, there.) The question they asked me was, why is my service able to compare againt T1 apposed to DSL, to justify the higher price? They looked at it as a lower grade service. My solution however, was a high end service. It was an Engineered 30 mbps TDD 4 mile link with a Direct path from the building to my core fiber peering point. I even have fiber in the building at $500, but don't use it, because the fiber has 4-5 hops to my transit location compared to my wireless that is a direct shot and bypasses many points of failure. I'll probably still get the business but after much sales agrevation and providing a good number of references. So its a valid point that Wireless does still scare some people. And Poor quality Wireless providers ruin the rep for the good quality WISPs. But my bigger point is that some customers actually think DSL is more reliable than an engineered wireless link used to replace Fiber and T1s. So branding Wireless as DSL, does not helpthe industry, it lowers the value of what we do. I've been plaqued by this problem, as my company name is... RapidDSL. It gets me the leads, but it also starts every sales call out with why I'm charging more than $50 a month for my service, that I generally get $150-$500 a month for. We now market our service as Broadband period. It has made all the difference. We don't lie about using wireless, its plastered all over our website. But why advertise something that just confuses everyone and costs everyone time to sort out. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Rick Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 8:55 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband great point! :) Scott Reed wrote: Who says the L in DSL must be Line? Call it Digital Subsciber Link and it works for the customer and uses our normal language for the radio connection. Scott Reed Owner NewWays Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration www.nwwnet.net http://www.nwwnet.net/
Re: [WISPA] Un- licensed WIMAX?
Jeff: If a system hasn't been through the interoperability testing, it ISN'T WiMAX - at all. Absent the certification of interoperability, at best what the vendors will be shipping and selling prior to achieving certification is a proprietary product with perhaps some WiMAX features. Vendors have been known to change their mind about guaranteeing upgrade to final specifications and likely a number of vendors will ship products and completely eschew the formalities of WiMAX interoperability certification. Nothing wrong with that unless they try to pull a fast one trying to associate such products with WiMAX, implying interoperability, where none is actually guaranteed. There is not, and cannot be, 4.9 GHz WiMAX products because there is not, nor is there likely to be, a WiMAX Forum profile for 4.9 GHz given that band is US only, and the US is projected to be a minor market for WiMAX gear. So those vendors that claim to be, or soon will be, shipping 4.9 GHz WiMAX gear are in fact shipping a PROPRIETARY system; absent WiMAX certification, there's no guarantee whatsoEVER of interoperability. The entire POINT of WiMAX is interoperability! The market is going to have to sort out the vendors who falsely claim WiMAX for their systems; apparently the WiMAX Forum has no intention of doing so. Thanks, Steve On Apr 4, 2006, at 21:37, Jeffrey Thomas wrote: That is correct, however those companies are expected to be shipping product ( and are taking pre orders ) that will comply with the testing whenever the gods at wimaxforum decide to get off their collective arses and certify 5.8. Airspan for example, already has wimax 4.9 product and is getting FCC certification. So in conclusion, yes on product, no on the interop profile or tests yet. - Jeff --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.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] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
Tom, Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless? Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Chris, I agree with your finding. But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or what was the finding?) For example, its not only important to determine what terms the customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning they have for those terms that they identify with. For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed Internet was the term that the consumer best identified with. However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much with DialUP service as they do with Broadband. And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL or Cable services. Why do we want to create the image of offering commodity services, design for huge over subscription, low repair SLAs, and best effort? Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as setting standards for quality? We don't want to be identified as that. We want to be something better. Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi services to your clients, and you are striving to be a competitor to Cable and DSL quality, sure Brand the product as DSL, and its a good thing. And please do so, so your wireless is not identified with what we offer, branding high quality fiber extension and T1 replacement services. In your focus group did you get any results on their perception of quality that they associated with Cable and DSL or the term High Speed Internet? Would you suggest branding your T1 or Fiber offerings as High Speed Internet, since customers best identify with that term? Maybe we should be branding our service as Wi-Fiber. or Maybe Ethernet Internet Access (of course like end users will know what Ethernet means.) Its a tough call because if we called our service Fiber or T1 we'd most likely be liars based on their true definitions. Nothing exists realting to quality for us to piggy back on. All though Broadband may not be as well recognized, its doesn;t associate us with Telcos or Cable companies necessarilly. Broadband is truthfully defined as a general term to cover any media type of delivery of Internet Access. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: chris cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:34 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband We conducted a few focus groups here. Most of the attendees were in the 18-24 yr. age bracket. It was amazing how many didn't identify with the word broadband. The words they responded to best were 'high speed internet Wireless was way down the list. Too much confusion with cellular. That said, I think wireless will hold its own as a marketing term eventually. Wireless is the sexy new darling of the world. It will be worth trading on the word eventually. The other part of this is that we are building brands as wireless providers, so it makes sense to keep that in the mix until the world catches up. In 95-96 I was out trying to sell people on the words internet, email and website. Those words didn't register then but they are now a permanent part of the American lexicon and in the American brain. The word wireless and what it represents will eventually do the same. chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:13 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Agreed excellent point (wireless scares and confuses people), except Why associate your service with DSL, a low grade $39 a month service, as advertized by Verizon? Why not associate it with T1 or just Broadband, higher quality services? If you associate it with DSL, then your are also associating it with the same quality and price. They think you are ripping them off charging $150 a month when they can get it for $39 a month down the street. When in accuality you are saving them 70% off their T1 line. Let me share a case that happened just yesterday. I got a call for DSL, they currently had voip and data on a T1, and they were looking for a DSL line to transfer the Internet Data to, to free up bandwidth on their T1 for their VOIP. It was a 15 minute close over the phone, since we had the MTU building lit, and represented we could have their new circuit installed the following day. I represented we were selling broadband, a T1 replacement. I made the mistake of leavingthe labeling of the contract heading as Wireless Broadband Agreement. The customer saw Wireless and didn;t sign, and asked to cancel order. I'm now likely going to win the client back, after most of yesterday on the phone answering questions from everyone under the sun. The problem was the customers computer
Re: [WISPA] Un- licensed WIMAX?
The entire point of WiMAX may be interoperability, but from a fixed wireless standpoint interoperability is meaningless. When and if mobile WiMAX becomes interesting interoperability will be important. Until then there is no need for it in a fixed wireless network, so the certification badge isn't desirable. What is desirable is the capabilities of the radios. We certainly want to see 802.16-based radios in 5.8Ghz. -Matt Steve Stroh wrote: Jeff: If a system hasn't been through the interoperability testing, it ISN'T WiMAX - at all. Absent the certification of interoperability, at best what the vendors will be shipping and selling prior to achieving certification is a proprietary product with perhaps some WiMAX features. Vendors have been known to change their mind about guaranteeing upgrade to final specifications and likely a number of vendors will ship products and completely eschew the formalities of WiMAX interoperability certification. Nothing wrong with that unless they try to pull a fast one trying to associate such products with WiMAX, implying interoperability, where none is actually guaranteed. There is not, and cannot be, 4.9 GHz WiMAX products because there is not, nor is there likely to be, a WiMAX Forum profile for 4.9 GHz given that band is US only, and the US is projected to be a minor market for WiMAX gear. So those vendors that claim to be, or soon will be, shipping 4.9 GHz WiMAX gear are in fact shipping a PROPRIETARY system; absent WiMAX certification, there's no guarantee whatsoEVER of interoperability. The entire POINT of WiMAX is interoperability! The market is going to have to sort out the vendors who falsely claim WiMAX for their systems; apparently the WiMAX Forum has no intention of doing so. Thanks, Steve On Apr 4, 2006, at 21:37, Jeffrey Thomas wrote: That is correct, however those companies are expected to be shipping product ( and are taking pre orders ) that will comply with the testing whenever the gods at wimaxforum decide to get off their collective arses and certify 5.8. Airspan for example, already has wimax 4.9 product and is getting FCC certification. So in conclusion, yes on product, no on the interop profile or tests yet. - Jeff --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.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] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is equivalent to 1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD radios can have dynamic time division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex link superior IMHO. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Tom, Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless? Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Chris, I agree with your finding. But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or what was the finding?) For example, its not only important to determine what terms the customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning they have for those terms that they identify with. For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed Internet was the term that the consumer best identified with. However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much with DialUP service as they do with Broadband. And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL or Cable services. Why do we want to create the image of offering commodity services, design for huge over subscription, low repair SLAs, and best effort? Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as setting standards for quality? We don't want to be identified as that. We want to be something better. Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi services to your clients, and you are striving to be a competitor to Cable and DSL quality, sure Brand the product as DSL, and its a good thing. And please do so, so your wireless is not identified with what we offer, branding high quality fiber extension and T1 replacement services. In your focus group did you get any results on their perception of quality that they associated with Cable and DSL or the term High Speed Internet? Would you suggest branding your T1 or Fiber offerings as High Speed Internet, since customers best identify with that term? Maybe we should be branding our service as Wi-Fiber. or Maybe Ethernet Internet Access (of course like end users will know what Ethernet means.) Its a tough call because if we called our service Fiber or T1 we'd most likely be liars based on their true definitions. Nothing exists realting to quality for us to piggy back on. All though Broadband may not be as well recognized, its doesn;t associate us with Telcos or Cable companies necessarilly. Broadband is truthfully defined as a general term to cover any media type of delivery of Internet Access. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: chris cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:34 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband We conducted a few focus groups here. Most of the attendees were in the 18-24 yr. age bracket. It was amazing how many didn't identify with the word broadband. The words they responded to best were 'high speed internet Wireless was way down the list. Too much confusion with cellular. That said, I think wireless will hold its own as a marketing term eventually. Wireless is the sexy new darling of the world. It will be worth trading on the word eventually. The other part of this is that we are building brands as wireless providers, so it makes sense to keep that in the mix until the world catches up. In 95-96 I was out trying to sell people on the words internet, email and website. Those words didn't register then but they are now a permanent part of the American lexicon and in the American brain. The word wireless and what it represents will eventually do the same. chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:13 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Agreed excellent point (wireless scares and confuses people), except Why associate your service with DSL, a low grade $39 a month service, as advertized by Verizon? Why not associate it with T1 or just Broadband, higher quality services? If you associate it with DSL, then your are also associating it with the same quality and price. They think you are ripping them off charging $150 a month when they can get it for $39 a month down the street. When in accuality you are saving them 70% off their T1 line. Let me share a case that happened just yesterday. I got a call for DSL, they currently had voip and data on a T1, and they were looking for a DSL line to transfer the Internet Data to, to free up bandwidth on their T1 for their VOIP. It was a 15 minute close over the phone, since we had the MTU building lit, and represented we could have their new circuit installed the following day. I represented we were selling broadband, a T1 replacement. I made the mistake of leavingthe labeling of the contract heading as Wireless Broadband Agreement.
Re: [WISPA] Dish mount
I pay a bit more than that but the ones I get from Pac Wireless are, by far, the strongest one's I've seen on the market. marlon - Original Message - From: Brian Rohrbacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Conversations over a new WISP Trade Organization wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 12:47 PM Subject: [WISPA] Dish mount I know this has been talked about before, but I can't find it. Where is the best place to get the DSS type Dish arms/mounts? I am looking to pay $6-$8 Brian -- 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] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
Matt, This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps upload, it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic, music sharing, worms, etc.). With a wireless connection, even at 3.0Mbps, a 1.5Mbps upload will bring it almost to a stop. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: 3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is equivalent to 1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD radios can have dynamic time division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex link superior IMHO. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Tom, Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless? Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Chris, I agree with your finding. But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or what was the finding?) For example, its not only important to determine what terms the customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning they have for those terms that they identify with. For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed Internet was the term that the consumer best identified with. However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much with DialUP service as they do with Broadband. And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL or Cable services. Why do we want to create the image of offering commodity services, design for huge over subscription, low repair SLAs, and best effort? Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as setting standards for quality? We don't want to be identified as that. We want to be something better. Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi services to your clients, and you are striving to be a competitor to Cable and DSL quality, sure Brand the product as DSL, and its a good thing. And please do so, so your wireless is not identified with what we offer, branding high quality fiber extension and T1 replacement services. In your focus group did you get any results on their perception of quality that they associated with Cable and DSL or the term High Speed Internet? Would you suggest branding your T1 or Fiber offerings as High Speed Internet, since customers best identify with that term? Maybe we should be branding our service as Wi-Fiber. or Maybe Ethernet Internet Access (of course like end users will know what Ethernet means.) Its a tough call because if we called our service Fiber or T1 we'd most likely be liars based on their true definitions. Nothing exists realting to quality for us to piggy back on. All though Broadband may not be as well recognized, its doesn;t associate us with Telcos or Cable companies necessarilly. Broadband is truthfully defined as a general term to cover any media type of delivery of Internet Access. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: chris cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:34 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband We conducted a few focus groups here. Most of the attendees were in the 18-24 yr. age bracket. It was amazing how many didn't identify with the word broadband. The words they responded to best were 'high speed internet Wireless was way down the list. Too much confusion with cellular. That said, I think wireless will hold its own as a marketing term eventually. Wireless is the sexy new darling of the world. It will be worth trading on the word eventually. The other part of this is that we are building brands as wireless providers, so it makes sense to keep that in the mix until the world catches up. In 95-96 I was out trying to sell people on the words internet, email and website. Those words didn't register then but they are now a permanent part of the American lexicon and in the American brain. The word wireless and what it represents will eventually do the same. chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:13 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Agreed excellent point (wireless scares and confuses people), except Why associate your service with DSL, a low grade $39 a month service, as advertized by Verizon? Why not associate it with T1 or just Broadband, higher quality services? If you associate it with DSL, then your are also associating it with the same quality and price. They think you are ripping them off charging $150 a month when they can get it for $39 a month down the street. When in accuality you are saving them 70% off their T1 line. Let me share a case that happened just yesterday. I got a call for DSL, they currently had voip and data on a T1, and they were looking for a DSL line to transfer the Internet Data to, to free up bandwidth on their T1 for their VOIP. It was
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
It is true. Basic logic says that 3Mbps divided in half means you can get 1.5Mbps. Further, find any device that can have strict time division partitioning set and test it yourself. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Matt, This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps upload, it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic, music sharing, worms, etc.). With a wireless connection, even at 3.0Mbps, a 1.5Mbps upload will bring it almost to a stop. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: 3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is equivalent to 1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD radios can have dynamic time division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex link superior IMHO. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Tom, Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless? Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Chris, I agree with your finding. But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or what was the finding?) For example, its not only important to determine what terms the customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning they have for those terms that they identify with. For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed Internet was the term that the consumer best identified with. However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much with DialUP service as they do with Broadband. And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL or Cable services. Why do we want to create the image of offering commodity services, design for huge over subscription, low repair SLAs, and best effort? Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as setting standards for quality? We don't want to be identified as that. We want to be something better. Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi services to your clients, and you are striving to be a competitor to Cable and DSL quality, sure Brand the product as DSL, and its a good thing. And please do so, so your wireless is not identified with what we offer, branding high quality fiber extension and T1 replacement services. In your focus group did you get any results on their perception of quality that they associated with Cable and DSL or the term High Speed Internet? Would you suggest branding your T1 or Fiber offerings as High Speed Internet, since customers best identify with that term? Maybe we should be branding our service as Wi-Fiber. or Maybe Ethernet Internet Access (of course like end users will know what Ethernet means.) Its a tough call because if we called our service Fiber or T1 we'd most likely be liars based on their true definitions. Nothing exists realting to quality for us to piggy back on. All though Broadband may not be as well recognized, its doesn;t associate us with Telcos or Cable companies necessarilly. Broadband is truthfully defined as a general term to cover any media type of delivery of Internet Access. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: chris cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:34 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband We conducted a few focus groups here. Most of the attendees were in the 18-24 yr. age bracket. It was amazing how many didn't identify with the word broadband. The words they responded to best were 'high speed internet Wireless was way down the list. Too much confusion with cellular. That said, I think wireless will hold its own as a marketing term eventually. Wireless is the sexy new darling of the world. It will be worth trading on the word eventually. The other part of this is that we are building brands as wireless providers, so it makes sense to keep that in the mix until the world catches up. In 95-96 I was out trying to sell people on the words internet, email and website. Those words didn't register then but they are now a permanent part of the American lexicon and in the American brain. The word wireless and what it represents will eventually do the same. chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:13 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Agreed excellent point (wireless scares and confuses people), except Why associate your service with DSL, a low grade $39 a month service, as advertized by Verizon? Why not associate it with T1 or just Broadband, higher quality services? If you associate it with DSL, then your are also associating it with the same quality and price. They think you are ripping them off charging $150 a month when they can get it for $39 a month down the street. When in accuality you are saving them 70% off their T1 line. Let me share a case that
RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
Higher ARPU WISPs in the business are selling their services as WiMAX -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of KyWiFi LLC Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 10:56 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband I'm noticing more and more WISP's selling their wireless broadband service as DSL or Wireless DSL. I know that 75% of the people who call our sales number have a difficult time understanding what Wireless Broadband is. They already know what DSL is and that is what the majority of them ask for so I would be interested in hearing everyone's opinions on the pros and cons of a WISP labeling their wireless broadband service as DSL, wDSL or Wireless DSL instead of Fixed Wireless, WiFI or Wireless Broadband. If the masses are more familiar with the term DSL then I think we would generate more sales leads by advertising our (WISPs') broadband as DSL instead of Wireless Broadband. I'm sure the local telco would just love to see all of us selling DSL. Are there any legalities to this? Does wireless broadband qualify as DSL or a form of DSL in the eyes of the law? Is it legal for a WISP to sell their wireless broadband service as DSL? Sincerely, Shannon D. Denniston, Co-Founder KyWiFi, LLC - Mt. Sterling, Kentucky http://www.KyWiFi.com http://www.KyWiFiVoice.com Phone: 859.274.4033 A Broadband Phone Internet Provider == Wireless Broadband, Local Calling and UNLIMITED Long Distance only $69! No Taxes, No Regulatory Fees, No Hassles FREE Site Survey: http://www.KyWiFi.com == -- 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] Un- licensed WIMAX?
snip That is correct, however those companies are expected to be shipping product ( and are taking pre orders ) that will comply with the testing whenever the gods at wimaxforum decide to get off their collective arses and certify 5.8. Airspan for example, already has wimax 4.9 product and is getting FCC certification. So in conclusion, yes on product, no on the interop profile or tests yet. /snip Basically, a roadmap to WiMAX? Look at the result of Wi-LAN's Continuty Program Roadmap to WiMAX? ducking Wi-LAN Continuity Program The Wi-LAN Continuity Program Provides - Standards Based W-OFDM Performance Today - Clear Path to the Standards - Risk Free Migration Strategy - Investment Protection - Proven Future Proof Solution History shows that when new standards are created then there is a lot of buzz and expection and a lot of marketing noise about standards based products being available soon. Again, history has shown that soon is often delayed until later or much later. High expectations turn into dissapointment and frustration. The Continuity Program shows Wi-LAN's clear path to the standards. Customers can purchase Libra products today and be confident that their investment will be protected when WiMAX products become available Oh Really? February 2, 2006 Wi-LAN Inc. is transitioning out of its broadband wireless equipment business to concentrate solely on its intellectual property rights business. So -- this leads one to ask -- how guaranteed is a roadmap to WiMAX? -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 11:38 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Un- licensed WIMAX? - Jeff On Apr 4, 2006, at 7:06 PM, Steve Stroh wrote: Neat trick... considering... There is not yet a WiMAX 5.8 GHz interoperability profile. Because there is not yet a WiMAX 5.8 GHz WiMAX interoperability profile, there have not yet been any 5.8 GHz interoperability tests. Because there has not yet been any WiMAX 5.8 GHz interoperability tests, there cannot be any WiMAX 5.8 GHz products certified as having completed the tests and declared interoperable. And, unless a product has been through the interoperability tests and declared interoperable, it cannot use the WiMAX brand name. Nope - no _5.8 GHz_ (license-exempt is assumed) WiMAX products. PERHAPS by year end... but I suspect it will be longer given that the vendors are going to be VERY busy selling all the 3.5 GHz (licensed, non-US markets) gear they can make AND getting Mobile WiMAX out will consume the available interoperability testing facilities and the attentions of the Mobile portions of the WiMAX industry. 5.8 GHz WiMAX is kind of an afterthought at the moment for the WiMAX industry. Thanks, Steve On Apr 4, 2006, at 11:37, jeffrey thomas wrote: George, Yes there is. Airspan and Aperto both have products and are taking orders now. - Jeff On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 08:16:46 -0700, George [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: What is going on with unlicensed WIMAX? Is there any products released yet or about to be released? Thanks George --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com -- 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] Un- licensed WIMAX?
Hi Jeff, Out of curiosity, since QoS base WiMAX certification currently are mutually exclusive, how does having QoS allow one manufacturer to have product that's more WiMAX than another (not to say that QoS makes a product better, but that's a whole different argument) -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 11:35 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Un- licensed WIMAX? George, I am sure there will be others, but likely the first will be Airspan ( May is Beta ) and Aperto ( shipping in June ). Redline likely will have product as well, but based on the fact that both Aperto and Airspan have considerable experience with QOS PTMP, I would think they will have the only great product out there. As well, on the CPE front, there are a number of taiwanese ODM's expected to announce sub 300 dollar integrated CPE. - Jeff On Apr 4, 2006, at 5:28 PM, George wrote: Ok, so far Jeff is the only one to say that unlicended Wimax will be available with Aperto and Airspan. What do you know Charles? George Charles Wu wrote: Alvarion VL is based on a WiFi chipset (this isn't meant to knock Alvarion, since almost every 5 GHz PtMP WISP manufacturered product out there is also based on a similar chipset) Alvarion BreezeMAX (they're product pending WiMAX certification) doesn't operate in 5 GHz -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:wireless- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pete Davis Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 6:42 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Un- licensed WIMAX? I thought Alvarion was Wimax, or wimax-able, or wimax compatible, or software-flashable to wimax. Wimax-ilicious, or something. pd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: George From what we have seen most of the unlicensed WIMAX will come into its own in the first half of 2007. The limitation for low cost units comes down to the chipsets, we have tested prototype mini-pci WIMAX radios (5Ghz) but they are far from ready for prime time. Sincerely, Tony Morella Demarc Technology Group, A Wireless Solution Provider Office: 207-667-7583 Fax: 207-433-1008 http://www.demarctech.com This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This communication may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the confidential or privileged nature of the communication. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender by return electronic mail and delete all copies of this communication -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:wireless- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 11:17 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Un- licensed WIMAX? What is going on with unlicensed WIMAX? Is there any products released yet or about to be released? Thanks George -- 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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Un- licensed WIMAX?
There is no such thing right now as unlicensed WiMAX (e.g., no way today to officially certify 5.8 Ghz WiMAX) So you *could* say that Motorola, Alvarion, Trango, Tranzeo, Mikrotik, StarOS, etc all have roadmaps to WiMAX just like Airspan Aperto -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 7:29 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Un- licensed WIMAX? Ok, so far Jeff is the only one to say that unlicended Wimax will be available with Aperto and Airspan. What do you know Charles? George Charles Wu wrote: Alvarion VL is based on a WiFi chipset (this isn't meant to knock Alvarion, since almost every 5 GHz PtMP WISP manufacturered product out there is also based on a similar chipset) Alvarion BreezeMAX (they're product pending WiMAX certification) doesn't operate in 5 GHz -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pete Davis Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 6:42 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Un- licensed WIMAX? I thought Alvarion was Wimax, or wimax-able, or wimax compatible, or software-flashable to wimax. Wimax-ilicious, or something. pd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: George From what we have seen most of the unlicensed WIMAX will come into its own in the first half of 2007. The limitation for low cost units comes down to the chipsets, we have tested prototype mini-pci WIMAX radios (5Ghz) but they are far from ready for prime time. Sincerely, Tony Morella Demarc Technology Group, A Wireless Solution Provider Office: 207-667-7583 Fax: 207-433-1008 http://www.demarctech.com This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This communication may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the confidential or privileged nature of the communication. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender by return electronic mail and delete all copies of this communication -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 11:17 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Un- licensed WIMAX? What is going on with unlicensed WIMAX? Is there any products released yet or about to be released? Thanks George -- 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] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
snip Maybe we should be branding our service as Wi-Fiber. or Maybe Ethernet Internet Access (of course like end users will know what Ethernet means.) /snip Spend trying to build a new brand around Wi-Fiber or just ride Intel / WiMAX Forum's Marketing machine... Here's the thing, chances are, whatever name you choose to brand this technology, the customer will probably be ignorant (it's still a new technology, eh?) However, when talking to them, and saying something like just google WiMAX to learn about our technology -- they'll see hundreds (if not thousands) of entries from reputable business magazines (from INC to Business Week to Fortune) all talking about how WiMAX is better than WiFi Cellular and how it can compete against T1s, they'll go ah-hah Not to be offensive here, but most WISPs don't know @[EMAIL PROTECTED] about sales marketing - Just remember, it takes about 8 touches to effectively sell a medium ARPU ($200-600 / month) data account -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] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
Tom DeReggi wrote: I've been plaqued by this problem, as my company name is... RapidDSL. It gets me the leads, but it also starts every sales call out with why I'm charging more than $50 a month for my service, that I generally get $150-$500 a month for. I'm seeing this company name as a problem more and more. If Wi-Fi or DSL is in your name, people's perception of you is different. Why would they buy a T1 or 10MB circuit from a company that specializes in DSL? Your name is your brand. Your brand only has room for one perception in the customers mind. It is very easy to get a DBA or Fictious Name registered with the Secretary of your State. So while your company is RapidDSL it could be dba RapidData, RapidPacket, or RapidBB. Regards, Peter RAD-INFO, Inc. BTW, the newsletter is out: http://4isps.com/newsletter.htm -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Un- licensed WIMAX?
Matt: The capabilities of WiMAX ALREADY exist in the proprietary products of Alvarion, Redline, Aperto Networks, etc. WiMAX is a standardization of the lowest-common-denominator of those capabilities, with certified interoperability. If you've waited this long for WiMAX capabilities, and don't care about interoperability... you've waited several years longer than you needed to. Thanks, Steve On Apr 5, 2006, at 09:02, Matt Liotta wrote: The entire point of WiMAX may be interoperability, but from a fixed wireless standpoint interoperability is meaningless. When and if mobile WiMAX becomes interesting interoperability will be important. Until then there is no need for it in a fixed wireless network, so the certification badge isn't desirable. What is desirable is the capabilities of the radios. We certainly want to see 802.16-based radios in 5.8Ghz. -Matt --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.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] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
We don't, but there is no need to. 3 mbps half duplex = 1.5 mbps full duplex. (Actually bettter, because when upload speed not used, its there to be used for high speeds in the other direction.) Our router bandwidth management allows setting speed in both directions (using HTB). Its one marketing trick that works to our advantage. We advertise symetrical, not simultaneous Full Duplex. That means we have same speed both directions, not top speed in both directions at the same time. So a client pushing 2 mbps down and 1 mbps up, would equal a 3 mbps link. We can advertise speeds up to the max speed someone can acheive in a specific direction. Because most clients do not use equal speed in both direction, nuch of their Full Duplex bandwidth just goes wasted and unused on T1s. So 3 mbps is perceived as twice the speed than their T1 for those that don;t catch the difference between full and half duplex. And a great replacement for their T1. Those that do understand the difference, well, we are still offering equivellent capacity. What also works to our advantage is that T1 providers also generally don't offer guaranteed bandwidth either. A T1 might be as low as $500 a month, but if the buy a true MCI guaranteed bandwidth circuit, paying 95%tile, they'd easilly be paying over $1000 buck for the T1 link. So technically competitor's T1s are MIR bandwidth under their SLA. So we also spec our product at MIR. We stay away from any term like Best Effort associated with commodity services like DSL. The second we take out local loop costs, we can always be more cost effective, with out sacrificing quality on the link at the back end, because we actually ahve a lower front end cost. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 11:52 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Tom, Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless? Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Chris, I agree with your finding. But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or what was the finding?) For example, its not only important to determine what terms the customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning they have for those terms that they identify with. For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed Internet was the term that the consumer best identified with. However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much with DialUP service as they do with Broadband. And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL or Cable services. Why do we want to create the image of offering commodity services, design for huge over subscription, low repair SLAs, and best effort? Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as setting standards for quality? We don't want to be identified as that. We want to be something better. Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi services to your clients, and you are striving to be a competitor to Cable and DSL quality, sure Brand the product as DSL, and its a good thing. And please do so, so your wireless is not identified with what we offer, branding high quality fiber extension and T1 replacement services. In your focus group did you get any results on their perception of quality that they associated with Cable and DSL or the term High Speed Internet? Would you suggest branding your T1 or Fiber offerings as High Speed Internet, since customers best identify with that term? Maybe we should be branding our service as Wi-Fiber. or Maybe Ethernet Internet Access (of course like end users will know what Ethernet means.) Its a tough call because if we called our service Fiber or T1 we'd most likely be liars based on their true definitions. Nothing exists realting to quality for us to piggy back on. All though Broadband may not be as well recognized, its doesn;t associate us with Telcos or Cable companies necessarilly. Broadband is truthfully defined as a general term to cover any media type of delivery of Internet Access. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: chris cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:34 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband We conducted a few focus groups here. Most of the attendees were in the 18-24 yr. age bracket. It was amazing how many didn't identify with the word broadband. The words they responded to best were 'high speed internet Wireless was way down the list. Too much confusion with cellular. That said, I think wireless will hold its own as a marketing term eventually. Wireless is the sexy new darling of the
Re: [WISPA] Un- licensed WIMAX?
I didn't mean to imply that I am waiting on the technology. We use Orthogon today, which provides us all the capabilities of WiMAX and then some. However, the price point simply doesn't compete with Canopy for last mile use, which is why we continue to use it. We are waiting on the capabilities at a price point similar to Canopy. None of the WiMAX vendors offer that today and I don't see how selling millions of 3.5Ghz radios is going to help the situation in the US. -Matt Steve Stroh wrote: Matt: The capabilities of WiMAX ALREADY exist in the proprietary products of Alvarion, Redline, Aperto Networks, etc. WiMAX is a standardization of the lowest-common-denominator of those capabilities, with certified interoperability. If you've waited this long for WiMAX capabilities, and don't care about interoperability... you've waited several years longer than you needed to. Thanks, Steve On Apr 5, 2006, at 09:02, Matt Liotta wrote: The entire point of WiMAX may be interoperability, but from a fixed wireless standpoint interoperability is meaningless. When and if mobile WiMAX becomes interesting interoperability will be important. Until then there is no need for it in a fixed wireless network, so the certification badge isn't desirable. What is desirable is the capabilities of the radios. We certainly want to see 802.16-based radios in 5.8Ghz. -Matt --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Turbocell Problem
I am troubleshooting a major problem in which (intermittently) we will have good connectivity TO the AP, but on the client side of the AP, our customers are having seriously slow connections or timeouts. Ping times TO the AP are fine constantly 10ms-40ms, but beyond the AP (client-side), ping times will stay up in the 500ms-800ms range. 45 clients off of a single omni on YDI AP-Plus w/Turbocell. Mixed bag of Karlnet RSU's, Teletronics Turbocell clients, and mostly Terabeam Etherant-Turbo's /LR's. Anyone seen this? Mark NashNetwork EngineerUnwiredOnline.Net350 Holly StreetJunction City, OR 97448http://www.uwol.net541-998-541-998-5599 fax -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
Travis, We do not see that on our network. One provider's usage rarely has an effect on the others, that can be significantly noticed. When bandwidth management is done at the first hop at every cell site, this does not happen. I'm referring to using Trango 5830s. You are however bringing up the difference between time syncronized circuit based apposed to Ethernet products. With Ethernet, there is always a scale up and scale down of speed, based on the TCP protocol when limits are reached, but this has nothing to do with half or full duplex. The same degregation using Ethernet applies to traffic going in the same direction. For Ethernet to be a viable repalcement for T1, it must be of greater capacity. The second thing, distinguishing the difference between T1 and DSL classe, and which Wireless compares to, is more than just Speed and Duplex. SLAs, Repair Time, Network support, Peak Speed, etc. the idea is that unused bandwdith can never be gone back to regain use of. So offering 3 mbps speed allows network usage to be delivered sooner, so bandwidth is free for upcomming traffic, therefore making more traffic available for that upcomming need. Higher capacity allows more efficient use of the bandwdith. So we find that our customers tend to recognize a perception of much better speed on our wireless links than our T1 links, because they have fewer congestion times. The secret is for the bandwdith management to be provided equally on a PRIORITY basis. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Matt, This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps upload, it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic, music sharing, worms, etc.). With a wireless connection, even at 3.0Mbps, a 1.5Mbps upload will bring it almost to a stop. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: 3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is equivalent to 1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD radios can have dynamic time division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex link superior IMHO. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Tom, Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless? Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Chris, I agree with your finding. But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or what was the finding?) For example, its not only important to determine what terms the customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning they have for those terms that they identify with. For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed Internet was the term that the consumer best identified with. However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much with DialUP service as they do with Broadband. And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL or Cable services. Why do we want to create the image of offering commodity services, design for huge over subscription, low repair SLAs, and best effort? Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as setting standards for quality? We don't want to be identified as that. We want to be something better. Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi services to your clients, and you are striving to be a competitor to Cable and DSL quality, sure Brand the product as DSL, and its a good thing. And please do so, so your wireless is not identified with what we offer, branding high quality fiber extension and T1 replacement services. In your focus group did you get any results on their perception of quality that they associated with Cable and DSL or the term High Speed Internet? Would you suggest branding your T1 or Fiber offerings as High Speed Internet, since customers best identify with that term? Maybe we should be branding our service as Wi-Fiber. or Maybe Ethernet Internet Access (of course like end users will know what Ethernet means.) Its a tough call because if we called our service Fiber or T1 we'd most likely be liars based on their true definitions. Nothing exists realting to quality for us to piggy back on. All though Broadband may not be as well recognized, its doesn;t associate us with Telcos or Cable companies necessarilly. Broadband is truthfully defined as a general term to cover any media type of delivery of Internet Access. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: chris cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:34 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband We conducted a few focus groups here. Most of the attendees were in the 18-24 yr. age bracket. It was
Re: [WISPA] Un- licensed WIMAX?
Agreed- interop is a great thing steve, but the problem is that currently no wimax profile requires any level of interop beyond simple bridging, which most operators will find that they want to use the QOS features so they can sell services such as voip. are these products i mentioned using the 802.16 intel chips? yes. To me thats what determines if something is Wimax grade or not. - Jeff On Apr 5, 2006, at 9:02 AM, Matt Liotta wrote: The entire point of WiMAX may be interoperability, but from a fixed wireless standpoint interoperability is meaningless. When and if mobile WiMAX becomes interesting interoperability will be important. Until then there is no need for it in a fixed wireless network, so the certification badge isn't desirable. What is desirable is the capabilities of the radios. We certainly want to see 802.16-based radios in 5.8Ghz. -Matt Steve Stroh wrote: Jeff: If a system hasn't been through the interoperability testing, it ISN'T WiMAX - at all. Absent the certification of interoperability, at best what the vendors will be shipping and selling prior to achieving certification is a proprietary product with perhaps some WiMAX features. Vendors have been known to change their mind about guaranteeing upgrade to final specifications and likely a number of vendors will ship products and completely eschew the formalities of WiMAX interoperability certification. Nothing wrong with that unless they try to pull a fast one trying to associate such products with WiMAX, implying interoperability, where none is actually guaranteed. There is not, and cannot be, 4.9 GHz WiMAX products because there is not, nor is there likely to be, a WiMAX Forum profile for 4.9 GHz given that band is US only, and the US is projected to be a minor market for WiMAX gear. So those vendors that claim to be, or soon will be, shipping 4.9 GHz WiMAX gear are in fact shipping a PROPRIETARY system; absent WiMAX certification, there's no guarantee whatsoEVER of interoperability. The entire POINT of WiMAX is interoperability! The market is going to have to sort out the vendors who falsely claim WiMAX for their systems; apparently the WiMAX Forum has no intention of doing so. Thanks, Steve On Apr 4, 2006, at 21:37, Jeffrey Thomas wrote: That is correct, however those companies are expected to be shipping product ( and are taking pre orders ) that will comply with the testing whenever the gods at wimaxforum decide to get off their collective arses and certify 5.8. Airspan for example, already has wimax 4.9 product and is getting FCC certification. So in conclusion, yes on product, no on the interop profile or tests yet. - Jeff --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com -- 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] Un- licensed WIMAX?
On Apr 5, 2006, at 9:46 AM, Charles Wu wrote: snip That is correct, however those companies are expected to be shipping product ( and are taking pre orders ) that will comply with the testing whenever the gods at wimaxforum decide to get off their collective arses and certify 5.8. Airspan for example, already has wimax 4.9 product and is getting FCC certification. So in conclusion, yes on product, no on the interop profile or tests yet. /snip Basically, a roadmap to WiMAX? no, product with the 802.16 chipsets and SDR so that they can be easily changed to fit whatever the wimaxforum decides is the profile. So -- this leads one to ask -- how guaranteed is a roadmap to WiMAX? the question should be- are they using 802.16 compliant technology? not whether or not they got the cutsey wimax sticker. Seriously, right now the wimax forum does not give a rats ass about the US market. -- 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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Un- licensed WIMAX?
Okay, we could both agree that a simple bridge mode system with no level of QOS, no ability to segment traffic flows between CBR/CIR/BE, would be pretty pointless right? then it would be simple best effort only services you could sell on a given link or base station. So while company A may be selling an 802.16 product without service flow segmentation its only a dumb bridge network, which you might as well go with a cheaper 802.11 based product then if the QoS is of no concern. - Jeff On Apr 5, 2006, at 9:46 AM, Charles Wu wrote: Hi Jeff, Out of curiosity, since QoS base WiMAX certification currently are mutually exclusive, how does having QoS allow one manufacturer to have product that's more WiMAX than another (not to say that QoS makes a product better, but that's a whole different argument) -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:wireless- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 11:35 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Un- licensed WIMAX? George, I am sure there will be others, but likely the first will be Airspan ( May is Beta ) and Aperto ( shipping in June ). Redline likely will have product as well, but based on the fact that both Aperto and Airspan have considerable experience with QOS PTMP, I would think they will have the only great product out there. As well, on the CPE front, there are a number of taiwanese ODM's expected to announce sub 300 dollar integrated CPE. - Jeff On Apr 4, 2006, at 5:28 PM, George wrote: Ok, so far Jeff is the only one to say that unlicended Wimax will be available with Aperto and Airspan. What do you know Charles? George Charles Wu wrote: Alvarion VL is based on a WiFi chipset (this isn't meant to knock Alvarion, since almost every 5 GHz PtMP WISP manufacturered product out there is also based on a similar chipset) Alvarion BreezeMAX (they're product pending WiMAX certification) doesn't operate in 5 GHz -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:wireless- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pete Davis Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 6:42 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Un- licensed WIMAX? I thought Alvarion was Wimax, or wimax-able, or wimax compatible, or software-flashable to wimax. Wimax-ilicious, or something. pd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: George From what we have seen most of the unlicensed WIMAX will come into its own in the first half of 2007. The limitation for low cost units comes down to the chipsets, we have tested prototype mini-pci WIMAX radios (5Ghz) but they are far from ready for prime time. Sincerely, Tony Morella Demarc Technology Group, A Wireless Solution Provider Office: 207-667-7583 Fax: 207-433-1008 http://www.demarctech.com This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This communication may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the confidential or privileged nature of the communication. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender by return electronic mail and delete all copies of this communication -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:wireless- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 11:17 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Un- licensed WIMAX? What is going on with unlicensed WIMAX? Is there any products released yet or about to be released? Thanks George -- 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/ -- 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] Un- licensed WIMAX?
Actually, I would argue that the great thing about wimax is not really interop- its lower costs on CPE. Until there is an agreed upon profile for WImax QOS, then literally everyone who buys wimax base stations will use the same manufacturers client devices. The only major difference is CPE cost, which will be in the sub 300 range by mid 07. Now all the propritary systems on the market currently cant deliver the level of service that wimax equipment can, with the same projected CPE cost. - Jeff On Apr 5, 2006, at 10:21 AM, Steve Stroh wrote: Matt: The capabilities of WiMAX ALREADY exist in the proprietary products of Alvarion, Redline, Aperto Networks, etc. WiMAX is a standardization of the lowest-common-denominator of those capabilities, with certified interoperability. If you've waited this long for WiMAX capabilities, and don't care about interoperability... you've waited several years longer than you needed to. Thanks, Steve On Apr 5, 2006, at 09:02, Matt Liotta wrote: The entire point of WiMAX may be interoperability, but from a fixed wireless standpoint interoperability is meaningless. When and if mobile WiMAX becomes interesting interoperability will be important. Until then there is no need for it in a fixed wireless network, so the certification badge isn't desirable. What is desirable is the capabilities of the radios. We certainly want to see 802.16-based radios in 5.8Ghz. -Matt --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com -- 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] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
On a good system like canopy or polling (nstream or turbocell) I have been able to run a FDX style link, downloading 1.5Mbps while uploading 1.5Mbps, using Nstream I have done 15Mbps pseudo-fdx Nstream2 allows a true FDX channel but I believe only PTP Dan Metcalf Wireless Broadband Systems www.wbisp.com 781-566-2053 ext 6201 1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783 [EMAIL PROTECTED] support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:22 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband It is true. Basic logic says that 3Mbps divided in half means you can get 1.5Mbps. Further, find any device that can have strict time division partitioning set and test it yourself. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Matt, This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps upload, it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic, music sharing, worms, etc.). With a wireless connection, even at 3.0Mbps, a 1.5Mbps upload will bring it almost to a stop. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: 3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is equivalent to 1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD radios can have dynamic time division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex link superior IMHO. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Tom, Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless? Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Chris, I agree with your finding. But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or what was the finding?) For example, its not only important to determine what terms the customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning they have for those terms that they identify with. For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed Internet was the term that the consumer best identified with. However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much with DialUP service as they do with Broadband. And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL or Cable services. Why do we want to create the image of offering commodity services, design for huge over subscription, low repair SLAs, and best effort? Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as setting standards for quality? We don't want to be identified as that. We want to be something better. Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi services to your clients, and you are striving to be a competitor to Cable and DSL quality, sure Brand the product as DSL, and its a good thing. And please do so, so your wireless is not identified with what we offer, branding high quality fiber extension and T1 replacement services. In your focus group did you get any results on their perception of quality that they associated with Cable and DSL or the term High Speed Internet? Would you suggest branding your T1 or Fiber offerings as High Speed Internet, since customers best identify with that term? Maybe we should be branding our service as Wi-Fiber. or Maybe Ethernet Internet Access (of course like end users will know what Ethernet means.) Its a tough call because if we called our service Fiber or T1 we'd most likely be liars based on their true definitions. Nothing exists realting to quality for us to piggy back on. All though Broadband may not be as well recognized, its doesn;t associate us with Telcos or Cable companies necessarilly. Broadband is truthfully defined as a general term to cover any media type of delivery of Internet Access. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: chris cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:34 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband We conducted a few focus groups here. Most of the attendees were in the 18-24 yr. age bracket. It was amazing how many didn't identify with the word broadband. The words they responded to best were 'high speed internet Wireless was way down the list. Too much confusion with cellular. That said, I think wireless will hold its own as a marketing term eventually. Wireless is the sexy new darling of the world. It will be worth trading on the word eventually. The other part of this is that we are building brands as wireless providers, so it makes sense to keep that in the mix until the world catches up. In 95-96 I was out trying to sell people on the words internet, email and website. Those words didn't register then but they are now a permanent part of the American lexicon and in the American brain. The word wireless and what it represents will eventually do the
RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
Our noc is connected w/ a 5.8Ghz PTP Link. We do streaming audio from that NOC while also providing internet access.. During the day the streaming audio hits over 2Mbps and during that same time we pulling 2Mbps to 4Mbps from the internet. The system is definitely HDX but has no problem sending and receiving data providing that there is capacity on the radio link, it just switch's rx/tx so fast Dan Metcalf Wireless Broadband Systems www.wbisp.com 781-566-2053 ext 6201 1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783 [EMAIL PROTECTED] support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 4:46 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Hi, If someone wants to setup whatever wireless network they would like to test and then let me know, I'll gladly send you a CD you can pop in a laptop and connect at the CPE side. It will dish out 4,000pps and 1.5Mbps of upload traffic. Then you can go ahead and try and download something at the same time across that same link using the same CPE connection. If it were a telco-T1, the download would not even notice the upload. Wireless, being a half-duplex medium, does not compare to a full-duplex line. Licensed and true microwave systems are a different story. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Travis, We do not see that on our network. One provider's usage rarely has an effect on the others, that can be significantly noticed. When bandwidth management is done at the first hop at every cell site, this does not happen. I'm referring to using Trango 5830s. You are however bringing up the difference between time syncronized circuit based apposed to Ethernet products. With Ethernet, there is always a scale up and scale down of speed, based on the TCP protocol when limits are reached, but this has nothing to do with half or full duplex. The same degregation using Ethernet applies to traffic going in the same direction. For Ethernet to be a viable repalcement for T1, it must be of greater capacity. The second thing, distinguishing the difference between T1 and DSL classe, and which Wireless compares to, is more than just Speed and Duplex. SLAs, Repair Time, Network support, Peak Speed, etc. the idea is that unused bandwdith can never be gone back to regain use of. So offering 3 mbps speed allows network usage to be delivered sooner, so bandwidth is free for upcomming traffic, therefore making more traffic available for that upcomming need. Higher capacity allows more efficient use of the bandwdith. So we find that our customers tend to recognize a perception of much better speed on our wireless links than our T1 links, because they have fewer congestion times. The secret is for the bandwdith management to be provided equally on a PRIORITY basis. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Matt, This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps upload, it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic, music sharing, worms, etc.). With a wireless connection, even at 3.0Mbps, a 1.5Mbps upload will bring it almost to a stop. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: 3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is equivalent to 1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD radios can have dynamic time division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex link superior IMHO. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Tom, Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless? Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Chris, I agree with your finding. But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or what was the finding?) For example, its not only important to determine what terms the customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning they have for those terms that they identify with. For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed Internet was the term that the consumer best identified with. However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much with DialUP service as they do with Broadband. And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL or Cable services. Why do we want to create the image of offering commodity services, design for huge over subscription, low repair SLAs, and best effort? Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as setting standards for quality? We don't want to be identified as that. We want to be something better. Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort,
[WISPA] BST, ATT, Sprint and 2.3G and 2.5G
BellSouth, the second-largest owner of 2.5GHz spectrum in the U.S., controls spectrum in most of the 50 largest markets, according to published reports. It also has substantial 2.3GHz spectrum (acquired in auctions in 1997). SBC Communications also gained a large amount of 2.3GHz spectrum when it acquired ATT. According to publicly available information, neither company has yet developed any of the spectrum into a commercial line of business; rather, the spectrum is effectively warehoused at present. (However, BellSouth has deployed test broadband service in nine in-region markets using its 2.3GHz spectrum, and it announced in March that it would use the 2.3GHz spectrum to provide backup broadband /BellSouths+WiMax+offered+as+broadband+backup/2100-1034_3-6051635.html?tag=nl for its wireline broadband service.) http://news.com.com/Is+the+AT38T-BellSouth+merger+in+trouble/2010-1037_3-6057214.html -- Regards, Peter RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect Communicate 813.963.5884 http://4isps.com/newsletter.htm -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] CPE's and the NEC
How do all you guys in NEC enforcement areas handle the grounding issue? Details please. Currently I am not in an enforcement area, but that's about to change. Scratching head, Jason -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Need 2.4 GHz - 900 MHz Frequency Converter
Does anyone have one 2.4 GHz to 900 MHz up/down converter that they are willing to part with? I need one to expand the coverage of a 2.4 GHz spectrum analyzer down to 900 MHz (receive only). Thanks in advance, jack -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Our next WISP Workshops are April 12-13 and April 26-27 Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.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] CPE's and the NEC
I am currently waiting on 2 distributors who I'm contacted about getting cat5 with a grounding wire (either #10,12, or 14). They are getting a hold of the manufacturers and are going to see if they will make it and what the min commit it. I will let everyone know. Brian Jason wrote: How do all you guys in NEC enforcement areas handle the grounding issue? Details please. Currently I am not in an enforcement area, but that's about to change. Scratching head, Jason -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] motorola mesh
Anyone know anything about Motorola's 802.11 mesh products? Are they rebranding someone else's gear (as it appears they did with Orthogon) or building their own? I haven't heard anything about it, but just found the marketing on my most recent visit to canopywireless.com. Any success stories with mesh muni wireless yet? I just attended a 'Wireless Wisconsin' conference largely about Milwaukee's project, which is being done by Midwest Fiber Networks. They've not resolved on a vendor yet, but claim that they'll build quickly because they will operate the network independently: they only lease the city's infrastructure. Thanks, -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] motorola mesh
Dont hold me to it but I thought for sure they were using Tropos - Original Message - From: Dylan Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 6:03 PM Subject: [WISPA] motorola mesh Anyone know anything about Motorola's 802.11 mesh products? Are they rebranding someone else's gear (as it appears they did with Orthogon) or building their own? I haven't heard anything about it, but just found the marketing on my most recent visit to canopywireless.com. Any success stories with mesh muni wireless yet? I just attended a 'Wireless Wisconsin' conference largely about Milwaukee's project, which is being done by Midwest Fiber Networks. They've not resolved on a vendor yet, but claim that they'll build quickly because they will operate the network independently: they only lease the city's infrastructure. Thanks, -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- 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] CPE's and the NEC
On the surface it sounds like a good idea. Im no electrician, nor do I play one on television. Is it a good idea to have the ground in the same sheath as the conductors? Im thinking in a lightning strike- would it be better to shunt the surge onto the tower and tower ground asap or run it all the way down to the ground at the busbar? Does having the ground in the same sheath increase the likelihood of burning up the equipment in the enclosure/house/radio shack? Chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Rohrbacher Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 6:52 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] CPE's and the NEC I am currently waiting on 2 distributors who I'm contacted about getting cat5 with a grounding wire (either #10,12, or 14). They are getting a hold of the manufacturers and are going to see if they will make it and what the min commit it. I will let everyone know. Brian Jason wrote: How do all you guys in NEC enforcement areas handle the grounding issue? Details please. Currently I am not in an enforcement area, but that's about to change. Scratching head, Jason -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/301 - Release Date: 4/4/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
John, It's now April 5th. How are you faring with the Cisco mesh gear? On 3/1/06, John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Cisco radios can do 4.9-5.8 GHz. I am assuming that 5.3-5.7 will be available in a update, since 4.9 is available now. Cisco apparently only has 6-8 deployments so far, and they are releasing updates regularly. Our install is tentatively scheduled for March 14th, so I should be able to post info shortly thereafter. Best, -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] CPE Cost Ideas Needed
I'm about to get my first WISP up and running but the major factor that's holding me back is the initial cost of the CPE's. I've decided to go with WaveWireless (formerly WaveRider) 900Mhz but the lowest prices are around $350 or so. I've been thinking of pitching the service by saying the following: Option 1: 1 Year Contract and install is $295.95. Option 2: 2 Year Contract and install is $195.95. Option 3: 3 Year Contract and install is $99.95. Option 4: 4 Year Contract and install is FREE. Anybody else have any suggestions to help offset the initial cost per customer in this regard? Thanks in advance. Sincerely, Joshua M. Andrews Support Corps of America www.SupportCorps.us -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
Travis, I'd love to perform your test. Send me the CD. Understanding that I will provision the customer at 3 mbps on our first hop router, using Trango 10mbps PtMP radio link, and that your CD test will generate 1500mbps of data transfer. There are three seperate issues here. 1) One user's connection able to effect another user's connection, and 2) On one particular link, their upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under normal opperation within acceptable use policy, and 3) On one particular link, their upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under a Denial of Service situation. With any type of broadband, if the capacity of a link is saturated, it results in packet loss and performance loss for the individual's connection. Its up to the end user to protect against violation of acceptable use policy like viruses that deliver abnormal PPS, or any queueing needed to allow fair priority of data type on the LAN side of the link. These problems can also all be solved with a feature rich client side router before plugging to our Broadband, regardless of the Duplex of our link. In other words, The same performance problems will result on a full Duplex link, if one direction gets saturated, and that same direction traffic will result in packet loss, and all communication generally requires some communication in each of the direction for traffic to flow in one direction. So where the problem may be worse with Half Duplex, the problem still exists in some capacity with Full Duplex. I'd argue that its possible to generate enough pps on a Full Duplex Link in one direction, that will overload the processing power of the radio CPU, and the other direction still getting horrible performance even with no traffic passing in that other direction even though Full Duplex, because no CPU time is available for it. Unless each direction has its own CPU, which is not likely. This is an issue of whether the radio used can handle the number of PPS sent to it in high DOS situations. I'd also argue under this situation 4000 pps 1500 mbps, that the customer's use of the circuit in any capacity when a DOS of that type was happening, would be not possible, and justify immediate tech action to resolve, regardless of whether one direction of traffic was usable. I;ve never met a company where having one direction traffic only was acceptable or tolerable. You did however hit on an important clarification. A half duplex link can not distinguish on its own wether upload or download traffic at a given moment is priority or more important to the subscriber. When there is a large demand for legitimate broadband, why would the data in one direction be any more priority than the other, when capacity is reached? Either way the customer is compromised in throughout needs one direction or another. Doesn't it really mean that the customer needs more total bandwidth? Is it any more important that mail was sent and not received? Full Duplex is one way for a customer to solve that problem, and reserve bandwdith in one direction. But does that really solve the problem? Maybe if the circuit's intended use is for 100% VOIP a symetrical application. But not many circuits are used for that purpose. And if I really wanted to, I can set my bandwdith management to be seperate for upload and download, and immulate a Full Duplex connection, over the half duplex link. But what it really says to me is the importance that customers have front end queuing / IP prioritization when using bi-directional sensitive applications such as VOIP. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 4:45 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Hi, If someone wants to setup whatever wireless network they would like to test and then let me know, I'll gladly send you a CD you can pop in a laptop and connect at the CPE side. It will dish out 4,000pps and 1.5Mbps of upload traffic. Then you can go ahead and try and download something at the same time across that same link using the same CPE connection. If it were a telco-T1, the download would not even notice the upload. Wireless, being a half-duplex medium, does not compare to a full-duplex line. Licensed and true microwave systems are a different story. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Travis, We do not see that on our network. One provider's usage rarely has an effect on the others, that can be significantly noticed. When bandwidth management is done at the first hop at every cell site, this does not happen. I'm referring to using Trango 5830s. You are however bringing up the difference between time syncronized circuit based apposed to Ethernet products. With Ethernet, there is always a scale up and scale down of speed, based on the TCP protocol
RE: [WISPA] CPE Cost Ideas Needed
Joshua, We originally charged a $200 install and a $150 install for businessThat was 4 years ago and was based on DSL just becoming available in my area. Since then, cable has become available. Both DSL and cable have become cheaper and offer free installs. Even with DSL and cable offering free installs, and short term commitments, I still get $200 for install for a 12 month agreement, $100 for 24 months and free for 36 months. All of the install fees are typically based on a $89.95 per month access charge. A 4 year agreement is to scary for most subscribers; especially with the rate this technology has changed. Each market is different. Get what you can while you can. What does your competitive market look like? - Cliff From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joshua M. Andrews Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 8:16 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] CPE Cost Ideas Needed I'm about to get my first WISP up and running but the major factor that's holding me back is the initial cost of the CPE's. I've decided to go with WaveWireless (formerly WaveRider) 900Mhz but the lowest prices are around $350 or so. I've been thinking of pitching the service by saying the following: Option 1: 1 Year Contract and install is $295.95. Option 2: 2 Year Contract and install is $195.95. Option 3: 3 Year Contract and install is $99.95. Option 4: 4 Year Contract and install is FREE. Anybody else have any suggestions to help offset the initial cost per customer in this regard? Thanks in advance. Sincerely, Joshua M. Andrews Support Corps of America www.SupportCorps.us -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Cisco Mesh Equipment
If it would stop raining.. We don't have it all deployed yet, but here is what we know. They take a long time to boot, maybe 5 minutes. The range is poor, they are supposed to put out 26 dBm per Cisco, but they only put out 14 dBm per the controller interface. We questioned Cisco on this, and they calimed that the 26 dB was the total of transmit + receive. We are going to try to get an engineer to tell us what the radio is and what the REAL output power is. If the power is truly on 14 dBm, that is not good. The 2.4 radios ar supposed to put out 25 dBm, but the controller interface is only showing 17 dBm max. We are hoping that this is a limit in the BIOS that can be changed. We had 1 link at 3600 feet with 1 tree in the way. 7.5 dB omni on each end and no link. As soon as another engineer put a 1500 (Mesh AP) in his car and got between the other two, the link came up. This is with one end on a firehouse at about 35 feet and the other on a light pole at about 26 feet or so. The monitoring is not what we expected-there doesn't seem to be any way to monitor the 5 GHz backhauls, but the monitoring of the 2.4 is very good. We are waiting on the city to put in some long-range ethernet links between the stoplights so we will actually have something to bridge. They currently only use 5.7-5.8 GHz, but 4.9 is supposed to be available later this year. John -Original Message- From: Dylan Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2006 06:09 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment John, It's now April 5th. How are you faring with the Cisco mesh gear? On 3/1/06, John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Cisco radios can do 4.9-5.8 GHz. I am assuming that 5.3-5.7 will be available in a update, since 4.9 is available now. Cisco apparently only has 6-8 deployments so far, and they are releasing updates regularly. Our install is tentatively scheduled for March 14th, so I should be able to post info shortly thereafter. Best, -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- 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] CPE Cost Ideas Needed
Be tough to get a 4 year contract. Plus how are you going to enforce these contracts? Who owns the CPE after install? Who takes care of maintenance? How about a Priority install charge to help off-set the CPE? Regards, Peter RAD-INFO, Inc. 4isps.com marketingideaguy.com Joshua M. Andrews wrote: I'm about to get my first WISP up and running but the major factor that's holding me back is the initial cost of the CPE's. I've decided to go with WaveWireless (formerly WaveRider) 900Mhz but the lowest prices are around $350 or so. I've been thinking of pitching the service by saying the following: Option 1: 1 Year Contract and install is $295.95. Option 2: 2 Year Contract and install is $195.95. Option 3: 3 Year Contract and install is $99.95. Option 4: 4 Year Contract and install is FREE. Anybody else have any suggestions to help offset the initial cost per customer in this regard? Thanks in advance. Sincerely, Joshua M. Andrews Support Corps of America www.SupportCorps.us http://www.SupportCorps.us -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
