Re: [WISPA] The nanostation thing....
insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: Charles Wyble [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 10:17 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] The nanostation thing Right. Madwifi ( http://madwifi.org/ ) is pretty good but having trouble keeping up with new Atheros models. MadWiFi is a sort of reverse engineering.Atheros knows how the chipsets work and you can buy the documentation, raw code, the secrets of the HAL, everything, by licensing. You also have to agree to certain levels of confidentiality, etc.This is why MADWIFI isn't official Atheros code, why the HAL for open source doesn't actually belong to Atheros. Last I knew, the cost of this was around $25K + the lawyers fees, etc... But this strict arm's length development of MADWIFI is part of the reason why it performs so poorly... The people with the access to the engineering information CAN build almost anything they want, since the Atheros radios are actually software defined. Once you get into the core of how it works, you have the ability to build a whole new original MAC, sort of. The money is what you pay for the license to use the information that Atheros gives you under confidentiality agreements. Now, YOU HAVE TO KEEP CONFIDENTIAL what you get, and the people using the GPL license run into some grief with that. BSD frees you from much of those constraints, makes a better system for closed/open source mix. Basically, you have to have to have seriously legally bound writers for the closed part of the code, and everyone else has no access to it. Probably end up with either closed source LKM's or a userland app or a daemon to accomplish this. Nice thing about it, is there's a LOT of hardware that has BSD licensed kernels... I got several interested parties including developers and WISP's, but the obstacle is the funding. The reason you need substantial funding: The wireless driver holds the key here. You need the license from Atheros, and that alone is a serious chunk of money. We came up with a couple of viable methods of making the idea work. The driver development has to keep the Atheros sources closed, and like other people have done, fundamental adjustment of the MAC would be the ultimate function. So what exactly are you referring to here which requires a license? The IP core? The HAL? Specifically, the HAL, but also a lot of engineering information they pass on to you. YOu learn how the radio works and how it can be changed... and you keep it a secret :) WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents
We have not ran into that yet. But thanks for letting us know. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Patrick Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 3:34 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents Should have read have you been affected... Patrick Shoemaker President, Vector Data Systems LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] office: (301) 358-1690 x36 mobile: (410) 991-5791 http://www.vectordatasystems.com Patrick Shoemaker wrote: Tom, on a semi-related note, have affected by the VLAN bug on these radios? The radio will not respond to any traffic originating outside if its own subnet if VLAN support is enabled. That means no monitoring by a NMS if it's not on the same subnet as the radio. Trango confirmed the bug back in February but has been unable / unwilling to fix it so far... Patrick Shoemaker President, Vector Data Systems LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] office: (301) 358-1690 x36 mobile: (410) 991-5791 http://www.vectordatasystems.com Tom DeReggi wrote: The T45 is probably my favorite ptp radio today, but I'm severally limited without support for 10mhz channels. I usually run 20Mhz channels, but the safety blanket to be able to drop to 10Mhz to get around interference is priceless, when it is needed. Thats never known until after the gear is deployed. I agree, just add supprot for 10Mhz channels, and Its all good for me. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Gino Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 12:00 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents Thay just need to add a couple of features to the t45... Better ethernet configuration options 5 10 40 channels support gino -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:13 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents Which really leaves me wondering what Trango is going to be selling? Kick ASX PTP systems. Both Tri-Band Atlases, and Licensed Links. The have the potential to stay a price leader in Quality PtP. As for the PTMP To this day, I have never been able to get over the need to do scans on the fly from APs, to determine best channel to try. The Atlas still gives us that, and makes it a long term contendor against all the other options. I think Trango realizes they can't miss the PTP licensed market, (its to important) and that they need to stay focused on it. What I don't understand is why they can't just write some quick firmware mods, and turn the Atlast PTP Ext into an Atlas PTMP AP? I sure hope they don't give up on the MM5, even if it can't give us everything we want. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 2:04 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents Hi, You are correct... my mistake. However, the MM5 was going to be 5ghz along with an MM2 (2.4ghz) and MM9 (900mhz)... but as you mentioned, the products have been discontinued. Which really leaves me wondering what Trango is going to be selling? Their 5 year old product is getting slow, and is still very expensive. :( Travis Charles Wu wrote: Travis, The Trango 5830 / 900 / 2400 were up/down-coverted 802.11b - not 802.11a systems The only 802.11a multipoint system that Trango had was MM5, and it is my understanding that (1) it was never for 900 MHz and (2) it has been put on hold / discontinued -Charles --- WiNOG Wireless Roadshows Coming to a City Near You http://www.winog.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents What about Trango? Charles Wu wrote: So, what down converted 802.11a systems are there for 900? Mini-PCI: Ubiquiti Zcomax Vendor Solutions: Tranzeo Alvarion Vecima/WaveRider Wu-Wu Special* *We are doing some exploratory investigation =) -Charles - Original Message - From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.orgmailto:wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:19 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents Even thought this thread is a bit old, couldn't help but add my 2 cents (as there seems to be a resurgence of puff in this space) DISCLAIMER: I
Re: [WISPA] The nanostation thing....
Right. Madwifi ( http://madwifi.org/ ) is pretty good but having trouble keeping up with new Atheros models. MadWiFi is a sort of reverse engineering.Atheros knows how the chipsets work and you can buy the documentation, raw code, the secrets of the HAL, everything, by licensing. Certainly. You are correct it's reverse engineering, and having access to the engineering data would result in a better product. You also have to agree to certain levels of confidentiality, etc.This is why MADWIFI isn't official Atheros code, why the HAL for open source doesn't actually belong to Atheros. Of course. :) Last I knew, the cost of this was around $25K + the lawyers fees, etc... But this strict arm's length development of MADWIFI is part of the reason why it performs so poorly... H define poor performance? As compared to what? Also 25k is very cheap many IP cores sell for over a million dollars. Naturally that's relative haha. :) The people with the access to the engineering information CAN build almost anything they want, since the Atheros radios are actually software defined. Ah now you have my attention even more... I have been getting into SDR recently: GNURadio http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuradio/doc/exploring-gnuradio.html and http://openpattern.org/ Obviously serious assembly required. Once you get into the core of how it works, you have the ability to build a whole new original MAC, sort of. Right. -- Charles Wyble (818) 280 - 7059 http://charlesnw.blogspot.com CTO Known Element Enterprises / SoCal WiFI project WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] The nanostation thing....
But the control point would be at the tower, not remote. I know some WISPs operate in remote areas, but this is more for a high density urban deployment, similar to what you would use AirSpan or Alvarion for. The reasoning behind the FDD style deployment would be to help compete against 10Mbps+ cable connections. Right now a 6 AP deployment usually has about 10Mbps for each AP (Canopy, Trango). My thought is to transmit-sync a 50Mbps (40mhz turbo-mode) signal, with the vision that you could give fiber speeds wirelessly. Or, with 50Mbps of bandwidth (per sector) it would give you the ability to serve thousands of subscribers in a high density deployment. The other though would be to be able to multicast MPEG4 video over it. My vision is to keep us being able to compete with cable DSL for years to come without spending a fortune. If an open source system could interface with 6 NS5's ($600) plus a rackmount PC ($1000), that's a Wimax-style QOS deployment for less than the price of a single Canopy unit. The other thought is that single NS5's are 802.11 and have no ability to transmit sync (i.e. share frequencies) like other systems do. By giving it the ability to do that, you have an inexpensive hardware platform with $1 per AP features. - Original Message - From: Charles Wyble [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 1:57 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] The nanostation thing Doug Ratcliffe wrote: My thoughts on this I've even mentied on the Mikrotik forum a while ago were to have a 2 part system: An outdoor wireless unit (like a Nanostation) that does nothing but act as a raw wireless interface, that connects to a master station inside the tower control room that is the intelligence, like Wimax-style QoS, polling, VOIP control etc. Isn't that how the Cisco solution works with a Wireless Lan Controller? This works great in campus environments which usually have a 100mbps or gigabit wired backbone, but not necessarily in WISP type deployments. In the case of a WISP you may have an exclusive wireless network (wireless link between CPE and aggregation point with WiMAX or other RF back haul ). or a hybrid model (wireless link between CPE and aggregation point with DSL/T1 back haul). Having the additional network infrastructure overhead on networks carrying customer traffic may or may not saturate your pipe. If you have the money to build separate control and data paths great! The outside part could be connected via network switch to allow a failover master control unit. Certainly. You want a reliable core. I would think the inside part would be a rack mountable Intel/AMD server or even an inexpensive workstation (since even a $250 computer has 20x the CPU power of a Nanostation). Certainly. Perhaps something like a mini ITX server. It would also allow the ability to sync AP broadcast, and maybe even include GPS sync capability. That would allow the outdoor unit to be minimal in flash and CPU speed but still allow high speed communications. Taken further into a 6x60 deg NS2/NS5 AP tower, combine that with mesh for tower to tower communications and have a Skypilot system on steroids (tower to tower routing with no hop loss). Interesting. Didn't quite follow all that, but I will research it. I had taken the idea to a second level having a FDD-style system with a separate transmit unit and recieve unit outdoors where the CPE would simply switch frequencies or polarities to recieve their packets, and switch again to transmit. Seems like a massive amount of overhead. What would the reasons and advantages/disadvantages for such an approach be? That could allow for a 40mhz-turbo mode broadcast (GPS synced) with 5mhz channel upstream. My thoughts were having the capability of sending out 50Mbps+ downstream to clients (assuming a dumb wireless driver would be very light on CPU usage compared to, say, a Mikrotik unit that does everything but cook your breakfast). mmhmm. I tried some concept stuff using MadWifi but without CSMA/CD disable, 5/10 mhz channel support, etc it was kinda pointless. The separate TX/RX channels came as a crutch idea for CSMA/CD because you could tell the unit that it is recieving on a disconnected antenna for the transmitter unit (so it would never detect carrier). In theory, it's basically like piping the raw wireless data directly into the eth0 interface. Nothing else on the outdoor part, all of the intelligence is in the indoor portion of the unit. Interesting what kind of network stack tuning did you do? What packet classifer? etc etc etc. Anyone like it? It certainly warrants further discussion and investigation. -- Charles Wyble (818) 280 - 7059 http://charlesnw.blogspot.com CTO Known Element Enterprises / SoCal WiFI project
Re: [WISPA] The nanostation thing....
Doug Ratcliffe wrote: But the control point would be at the tower, not remote. I know some WISPs operate in remote areas, but this is more for a high density urban deployment, similar to what you would use AirSpan or Alvarion for. Right. Makes sense. I re read the original post. My apologies. :) The reasoning behind the FDD style deployment would be to help compete against 10Mbps+ cable connections. Right now a 6 AP deployment usually has about 10Mbps for each AP (Canopy, Trango). My thought is to transmit-sync a 50Mbps (40mhz turbo-mode) signal, with the vision that you could give fiber speeds wirelessly. Or, with 50Mbps of bandwidth (per sector) it would give you the ability to serve thousands of subscribers in a high density deployment. The other though would be to be able to multicast MPEG4 video over it. Yes that makes sense. My vision is to keep us being able to compete with cable DSL for years to come without spending a fortune. If an open source system could interface with 6 NS5's ($600) plus a rackmount PC ($1000), that's a Wimax-style QOS deployment for less than the price of a single Canopy unit. The other thought is that single NS5's are 802.11 and have no ability to transmit sync (i.e. share frequencies) like other systems do. By giving it the ability to do that, you have an inexpensive hardware platform with $1 per AP features. Indeed. I think you are onto something here! :) -- Charles Wyble (818) 280 - 7059 http://charlesnw.blogspot.com CTO Known Element Enterprises / SoCal WiFI project WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field
With some of the Wimax discussions going on I thought I would throw my hat into the ring. 3.650 Wimax using 802.16d only products provides decent connectivity, at a higher cost than traditional unlicensed gear. Performance/coverage is on par, or better than 2.4 that most of are used to. Pay a little extra for product, gain access to cleaner spectrum and hopefully a rule set that helps keep it cleaner than our wild wild west unlicensed world. Now deploy 3.650 using 802.16e upgradeable products. The coverage difference when using diversity options goes up significantly. Now 3.650 begins to act and feel more like a 900Mhz product with NLOS coverage capability. Actually our customers, and our field tests are showing that it exceeds 900Mhz often by a large margin. Here are a couple recent field examples all 2nd order diversity: Customer 1- 8.4 mile NLOS location. blocked by heavy trees . 1.5MB download holding CPE in their hand on the ground! Decided to test 5.8 at this location and @ 50' AGL the CPE got a link. 5.8 mounted on the same tower, same height as 3.650. The 5.8 system could not pass data and could just barely maintain association. Customer 2- 12.4 miles away at the owners home. 1.0mb on the ground. This location could not be serviced by 2.4 or 5.8 at 40' above the ground previously. The owner is going to mount Wimax on the roof and I expect he will se 10-12MB at that height. Customer 2- 12.6 miles on the ground. Completely obstructed 6MB down 3MB up. Customer 3- This is one of the most telling. Canopy 900 operator. 3.650 2nd order diversity mounted 10' below Canopy. 100% coverage at 3.650 of a small city. It takes 2 tower locations with 900 here to serve the same area. They gave up field testing because it works everywhere. They the said lets try to break it. We drove to a part of town that is challenged with 900 coverage. They found a traditionally bad coverage spot and drove up to a big tree, took the CPE out of the vehicle and buried it in the tree. -101 signal. They then picked up their VOIP phone and called the NOC and did a can you hear me now? Toll quality voice call. Our internal testing is showing similar results. Using 4th order diversity is showing even better results than above. When you do the upgrade to 16e and add Wave II CPE, Katy bar the door. That coverage is nothing less than jaw dropping. 2.5 miles obstructed with a PC card! Same PC card 1 mile away entering a commercial building, no signal change. Not possible with a traditional system. In this case the wall measured a 25db loss, however STC and MRC diversity gains completely made up for the attenuation once the paths became uncorrelated. Bottom line is diversity is the place to be with Wimax. It is more expensive, so find a way to afford it. Push your vendor for price breaks and don't be bashful. Alvarion for example is willing to work to earn business as well as the others. CPE costs for D and E systems are the same today, E will be much cheaper in the near future. Not all Wimax is the same, so test a site or visit one, you will walk away amazed. My two cents, and we carry all D and E products. Each has its place. Mike Mike Cowan Wireless Connections A Division of ACC 166 Milan Ave Norwalk, OH 44857 419-660-6100 419-706-7348 Cell [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.wirelessconnections.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field
Mike you have peaked my interest with the 900Mhz against the 3.65. Were any of these tests done with hills? My problem is we have hills, and lots of them and trees too. You can't drive much more than a mile without going up a hill with a change of 100 - 150 ft in elevation. Anyone tested or used 3.65 under these circumstances that care to chime in? Scottie -- Original Message -- From: Mike Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:06:59 -0400 With some of the Wimax discussions going on I thought I would throw my hat into the ring. 3.650 Wimax using 802.16d only products provides decent connectivity, at a higher cost than traditional unlicensed gear. Performance/coverage is on par, or better than 2.4 that most of are used to. Pay a little extra for product, gain access to cleaner spectrum and hopefully a rule set that helps keep it cleaner than our wild wild west unlicensed world. Now deploy 3.650 using 802.16e upgradeable products. The coverage difference when using diversity options goes up significantly. Now 3.650 begins to act and feel more like a 900Mhz product with NLOS coverage capability. Actually our customers, and our field tests are showing that it exceeds 900Mhz often by a large margin. Here are a couple recent field examples all 2nd order diversity: Customer 1- 8.4 mile NLOS location. blocked by heavy trees . 1.5MB download holding CPE in their hand on the ground! Decided to test 5.8 at this location and @ 50' AGL the CPE got a link. 5.8 mounted on the same tower, same height as 3.650. The 5.8 system could not pass data and could just barely maintain association. Customer 2- 12.4 miles away at the owners home. 1.0mb on the ground. This location could not be serviced by 2.4 or 5.8 at 40' above the ground previously. The owner is going to mount Wimax on the roof and I expect he will se 10-12MB at that height. Customer 2- 12.6 miles on the ground. Completely obstructed 6MB down 3MB up. Customer 3- This is one of the most telling. Canopy 900 operator. 3.650 2nd order diversity mounted 10' below Canopy. 100% coverage at 3.650 of a small city. It takes 2 tower locations with 900 here to serve the same area. They gave up field testing because it works everywhere. They the said lets try to break it. We drove to a part of town that is challenged with 900 coverage. They found a traditionally bad coverage spot and drove up to a big tree, took the CPE out of the vehicle and buried it in the tree. -101 signal. They then picked up their VOIP phone and called the NOC and did a can you hear me now? Toll quality voice call. Our internal testing is showing similar results. Using 4th order diversity is showing even better results than above. When you do the upgrade to 16e and add Wave II CPE, Katy bar the door. That coverage is nothing less than jaw dropping. 2.5 miles obstructed with a PC card! Same PC card 1 mile away entering a commercial building, no signal change. Not possible with a traditional system. In this case the wall measured a 25db loss, however STC and MRC diversity gains completely made up for the attenuation once the paths became uncorrelated. Bottom line is diversity is the place to be with Wimax. It is more expensive, so find a way to afford it. Push your vendor for price breaks and don't be bashful. Alvarion for example is willing to work to earn business as well as the others. CPE costs for D and E systems are the same today, E will be much cheaper in the near future. Not all Wimax is the same, so test a site or visit one, you will walk away amazed. My two cents, and we carry all D and E products. Each has its place. Mike Mike Cowan Wireless Connections A Division of ACC 166 Milan Ave Norwalk, OH 44857 419-660-6100 419-706-7348 Cell [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.wirelessconnections.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] Dial-Up Internet service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $9.99/mth. Check out www.info-ed.com for information. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field
Hi Scottie, No, all flat ground but Midwest trees. Your scenario would be an interesting test. Mike At 07:59 PM 7/21/2008, you wrote: Mike you have peaked my interest with the 900Mhz against the 3.65. Were any of these tests done with hills? My problem is we have hills, and lots of them and trees too. You can't drive much more than a mile without going up a hill with a change of 100 - 150 ft in elevation. Anyone tested or used 3.65 under these circumstances that care to chime in? Scottie Mike Cowan Wireless Connections A Division of ACC 166 Milan Ave Norwalk, OH 44857 419-660-6100 419-706-7348 Cell [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.wirelessconnections.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Right, but my point was that Mikrotik doesn't need to be worrying about virtualization. They need to put some more work into QA and USEFUL feature expansion, like into 802.11 and 802.16, not Xen. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Jim Patient [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 10:47 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations No Mike, not just our systems, any x86 system. That is why we don't think they are ending x86 support any time soon. The package is in testing now and hasn't been officially released. Mikrotik continually works to improve the OS. They normally respond well to bugs and fixes. They take votes from users on feature requests. You can vote at: http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/MikroTik_RouterOS/v3/Feature_Requests Jim Mike Hammett wrote: So let me get this right... Instead of working on wireless drivers, improving the existing feature set, stabilizing the whole router, etc. Mikrotik has been working on making your router virtual server host? Before I complain directly to Mikrotik, could you point me to something official saying that is out? Why don't they add on Media Center capability so I can store movies and TV shows on my router and stream them to my XBox, or heck, let me plug in a TV so I can play them directly from the router? Maybe they could just directly integrate with an XBox 360 and a DirecTV? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Jim Patient [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 8:00 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Spell checker must have got Dennis. He meant Virtualization (Zen). So now you can have your router, Asterisk, billing, mail server, web server all on one Mikrotik box. Obviously it will take a beefy unit like the PR 2282 to do this. Jim// Mike Hammett wrote: Visualization? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Dennis Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 11:56 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Very seriously doubt they will be dropping support for x86. Seeing that they just introduced visualization only offered on the x86 platform! Scottie Arnett wrote: DD-WRT and OpenWRT pretty much already do this for quite a few chipsets. They are not near the software as Mikrotik or StarOS is...but, if Mikrotikl drops support for x86, I would not be suprised if they or a new project starts very quickly to serve that need. Scott -- Original Message -- From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:01:19 -0600 I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this. - Original Message - From: Japhy Bartlett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book.. Remember how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game? How the company that wrote software for specific hardware lost - hard? For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good code already written and being developed? Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin. solution. I.e., Windows and Apple. Look at how the PC market converged towards x86! If Mikrotik or some of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to port every stinking firmware flavor. Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful business model .. ever? And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, well this firmware does X better. Is there anything particularly different between Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS? - japhy And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon. On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While you may be right on their focus being
Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field
Now this is a 180* of what others have told me, even others offering traditional, D, and E products. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Mike Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 6:06 PM Subject: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field With some of the Wimax discussions going on I thought I would throw my hat into the ring. 3.650 Wimax using 802.16d only products provides decent connectivity, at a higher cost than traditional unlicensed gear. Performance/coverage is on par, or better than 2.4 that most of are used to. Pay a little extra for product, gain access to cleaner spectrum and hopefully a rule set that helps keep it cleaner than our wild wild west unlicensed world. Now deploy 3.650 using 802.16e upgradeable products. The coverage difference when using diversity options goes up significantly. Now 3.650 begins to act and feel more like a 900Mhz product with NLOS coverage capability. Actually our customers, and our field tests are showing that it exceeds 900Mhz often by a large margin. Here are a couple recent field examples all 2nd order diversity: Customer 1- 8.4 mile NLOS location. blocked by heavy trees . 1.5MB download holding CPE in their hand on the ground! Decided to test 5.8 at this location and @ 50' AGL the CPE got a link. 5.8 mounted on the same tower, same height as 3.650. The 5.8 system could not pass data and could just barely maintain association. Customer 2- 12.4 miles away at the owners home. 1.0mb on the ground. This location could not be serviced by 2.4 or 5.8 at 40' above the ground previously. The owner is going to mount Wimax on the roof and I expect he will se 10-12MB at that height. Customer 2- 12.6 miles on the ground. Completely obstructed 6MB down 3MB up. Customer 3- This is one of the most telling. Canopy 900 operator. 3.650 2nd order diversity mounted 10' below Canopy. 100% coverage at 3.650 of a small city. It takes 2 tower locations with 900 here to serve the same area. They gave up field testing because it works everywhere. They the said lets try to break it. We drove to a part of town that is challenged with 900 coverage. They found a traditionally bad coverage spot and drove up to a big tree, took the CPE out of the vehicle and buried it in the tree. -101 signal. They then picked up their VOIP phone and called the NOC and did a can you hear me now? Toll quality voice call. Our internal testing is showing similar results. Using 4th order diversity is showing even better results than above. When you do the upgrade to 16e and add Wave II CPE, Katy bar the door. That coverage is nothing less than jaw dropping. 2.5 miles obstructed with a PC card! Same PC card 1 mile away entering a commercial building, no signal change. Not possible with a traditional system. In this case the wall measured a 25db loss, however STC and MRC diversity gains completely made up for the attenuation once the paths became uncorrelated. Bottom line is diversity is the place to be with Wimax. It is more expensive, so find a way to afford it. Push your vendor for price breaks and don't be bashful. Alvarion for example is willing to work to earn business as well as the others. CPE costs for D and E systems are the same today, E will be much cheaper in the near future. Not all Wimax is the same, so test a site or visit one, you will walk away amazed. My two cents, and we carry all D and E products. Each has its place. Mike Mike Cowan Wireless Connections A Division of ACC 166 Milan Ave Norwalk, OH 44857 419-660-6100 419-706-7348 Cell [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.wirelessconnections.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field
Same here, I thought it was all marketing hype, if it works like the poster mentioned, we will need to consider moving up our timetable for evaluating wimax, 10k a basestation suddenly isn't that bad with the performance described. Regards Michael Baird Now this is a 180* of what others have told me, even others offering traditional, D, and E products. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Mike Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 6:06 PM Subject: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field With some of the Wimax discussions going on I thought I would throw my hat into the ring. 3.650 Wimax using 802.16d only products provides decent connectivity, at a higher cost than traditional unlicensed gear. Performance/coverage is on par, or better than 2.4 that most of are used to. Pay a little extra for product, gain access to cleaner spectrum and hopefully a rule set that helps keep it cleaner than our wild wild west unlicensed world. Now deploy 3.650 using 802.16e upgradeable products. The coverage difference when using diversity options goes up significantly. Now 3.650 begins to act and feel more like a 900Mhz product with NLOS coverage capability. Actually our customers, and our field tests are showing that it exceeds 900Mhz often by a large margin. Here are a couple recent field examples all 2nd order diversity: Customer 1- 8.4 mile NLOS location. blocked by heavy trees . 1.5MB download holding CPE in their hand on the ground! Decided to test 5.8 at this location and @ 50' AGL the CPE got a link. 5.8 mounted on the same tower, same height as 3.650. The 5.8 system could not pass data and could just barely maintain association. Customer 2- 12.4 miles away at the owners home. 1.0mb on the ground. This location could not be serviced by 2.4 or 5.8 at 40' above the ground previously. The owner is going to mount Wimax on the roof and I expect he will se 10-12MB at that height. Customer 2- 12.6 miles on the ground. Completely obstructed 6MB down 3MB up. Customer 3- This is one of the most telling. Canopy 900 operator. 3.650 2nd order diversity mounted 10' below Canopy. 100% coverage at 3.650 of a small city. It takes 2 tower locations with 900 here to serve the same area. They gave up field testing because it works everywhere. They the said lets try to break it. We drove to a part of town that is challenged with 900 coverage. They found a traditionally bad coverage spot and drove up to a big tree, took the CPE out of the vehicle and buried it in the tree. -101 signal. They then picked up their VOIP phone and called the NOC and did a can you hear me now? Toll quality voice call. Our internal testing is showing similar results. Using 4th order diversity is showing even better results than above. When you do the upgrade to 16e and add Wave II CPE, Katy bar the door. That coverage is nothing less than jaw dropping. 2.5 miles obstructed with a PC card! Same PC card 1 mile away entering a commercial building, no signal change. Not possible with a traditional system. In this case the wall measured a 25db loss, however STC and MRC diversity gains completely made up for the attenuation once the paths became uncorrelated. Bottom line is diversity is the place to be with Wimax. It is more expensive, so find a way to afford it. Push your vendor for price breaks and don't be bashful. Alvarion for example is willing to work to earn business as well as the others. CPE costs for D and E systems are the same today, E will be much cheaper in the near future. Not all Wimax is the same, so test a site or visit one, you will walk away amazed. My two cents, and we carry all D and E products. Each has its place. Mike Mike Cowan Wireless Connections A Division of ACC 166 Milan Ave Norwalk, OH 44857 419-660-6100 419-706-7348 Cell [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.wirelessconnections.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field
Many of you have known me for years, some wish they didn't :-). I am the doubting Thomas type and have to test myself before I recommend products to a client. Lets just say that Thomas was satisfied. Now the clients are echoing the same and that is what drives my wagon. Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mike At 08:52 PM 7/21/2008, you wrote: Same here, I thought it was all marketing hype, if it works like the poster mentioned, we will need to consider moving up our timetable for evaluating wimax, 10k a basestation suddenly isn't that bad with the performance described. Regards Michael Baird Now this is a 180* of what others have told me, even others offering traditional, D, and E products. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Mike Cowan Wireless Connections A Division of ACC 166 Milan Ave Norwalk, OH 44857 419-660-6100 419-706-7348 Cell [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.wirelessconnections.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field
I believe it. Today we had a 1.5 mile shot through dense trees using Redline Redmax 3.65. Customer was getting close to 500k upload. Signal held steady at 88db on a 1-story house. On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Mike Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Many of you have known me for years, some wish they didn't :-). I am the doubting Thomas type and have to test myself before I recommend products to a client. Lets just say that Thomas was satisfied. Now the clients are echoing the same and that is what drives my wagon. Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mike At 08:52 PM 7/21/2008, you wrote: Same here, I thought it was all marketing hype, if it works like the poster mentioned, we will need to consider moving up our timetable for evaluating wimax, 10k a basestation suddenly isn't that bad with the performance described. Regards Michael Baird Now this is a 180* of what others have told me, even others offering traditional, D, and E products. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Mike Cowan Wireless Connections A Division of ACC 166 Milan Ave Norwalk, OH 44857 419-660-6100 419-706-7348 Cell [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.wirelessconnections.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- John M. McDowell Boonlink Communications 307 Grand Ave NW Fort Payne, AL 35967 256.844.9932 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.boonlink.com This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy, re-transmit, or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and delete the message. E-mail communication is highly susceptible to spoofing, spamming, and other tampering, some of which may be harmful to your computer. If you are concerned about the authenticity of the message or the source, please contact the sender directly. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field
So, how much does this stuff cost? Brian John McDowell wrote: I believe it. Today we had a 1.5 mile shot through dense trees using Redline Redmax 3.65. Customer was getting close to 500k upload. Signal held steady at 88db on a 1-story house. On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Mike Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Many of you have known me for years, some wish they didn't :-). I am the doubting Thomas type and have to test myself before I recommend products to a client. Lets just say that Thomas was satisfied. Now the clients are echoing the same and that is what drives my wagon. Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mike At 08:52 PM 7/21/2008, you wrote: Same here, I thought it was all marketing hype, if it works like the poster mentioned, we will need to consider moving up our timetable for evaluating wimax, 10k a basestation suddenly isn't that bad with the performance described. Regards Michael Baird Now this is a 180* of what others have told me, even others offering traditional, D, and E products. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Mike Cowan Wireless Connections A Division of ACC 166 Milan Ave Norwalk, OH 44857 419-660-6100 419-706-7348 Cell [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.wirelessconnections.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field
I hear RedMax is coming down in price on CPEs when you buy a pallet of 72. Sub $400. Mike, I'm interested to know what Alvarion is pricing the 3.65 gear now that it is available. Have they come down at all? On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Brian Rohrbacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, how much does this stuff cost? Brian John McDowell wrote: I believe it. Today we had a 1.5 mile shot through dense trees using Redline Redmax 3.65. Customer was getting close to 500k upload. Signal held steady at 88db on a 1-story house. On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Mike Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Many of you have known me for years, some wish they didn't :-). I am the doubting Thomas type and have to test myself before I recommend products to a client. Lets just say that Thomas was satisfied. Now the clients are echoing the same and that is what drives my wagon. Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mike At 08:52 PM 7/21/2008, you wrote: Same here, I thought it was all marketing hype, if it works like the poster mentioned, we will need to consider moving up our timetable for evaluating wimax, 10k a basestation suddenly isn't that bad with the performance described. Regards Michael Baird Now this is a 180* of what others have told me, even others offering traditional, D, and E products. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutionshttp://www.ics-il.com Mike Cowan Wireless Connections A Division of ACC 166 Milan Ave Norwalk, OH 44857 419-660-6100 419-706-7348 [EMAIL PROTECTED] WISPA Wants You! Join today!http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- John M. McDowell Boonlink Communications 307 Grand Ave NW Fort Payne, AL 35967 256.844.9932 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.boonlink.com This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy, re-transmit, or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and delete the message. E-mail communication is highly susceptible to spoofing, spamming, and other tampering, some of which may be harmful to your computer. If you are concerned about the authenticity of the message or the source, please contact the sender directly. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field
What about APs? John McDowell wrote: I hear RedMax is coming down in price on CPEs when you buy a pallet of 72. Sub $400. Mike, I'm interested to know what Alvarion is pricing the 3.65 gear now that it is available. Have they come down at all? On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Brian Rohrbacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, how much does this stuff cost? Brian John McDowell wrote: I believe it. Today we had a 1.5 mile shot through dense trees using Redline Redmax 3.65. Customer was getting close to 500k upload. Signal held steady at 88db on a 1-story house. On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Mike Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Many of you have known me for years, some wish they didn't :-). I am the doubting Thomas type and have to test myself before I recommend products to a client. Lets just say that Thomas was satisfied. Now the clients are echoing the same and that is what drives my wagon. Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mike At 08:52 PM 7/21/2008, you wrote: Same here, I thought it was all marketing hype, if it works like the poster mentioned, we will need to consider moving up our timetable for evaluating wimax, 10k a basestation suddenly isn't that bad with the performance described. Regards Michael Baird Now this is a 180* of what others have told me, even others offering traditional, D, and E products. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutionshttp://www.ics-il.com Mike Cowan Wireless Connections A Division of ACC 166 Milan Ave Norwalk, OH 44857 419-660-6100 419-706-7348 [EMAIL PROTECTED] WISPA Wants You! Join today!http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Mike Hammett wrote: They just copied someone else's card, though I forget now who. It's in the FCC docs. IIRC, the MT cards are relabled Compex cards. -- *Butch Evans*Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream * *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE * *http://blog.butchevans.com/*Wired or wireless Networks* *Mikrotik Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer* WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Jim Patient wrote: Spell checker must have got Dennis. He meant Virtualization (Zen). Got Jim, too...he meant Virtualization (Xen). :-) -- *Butch Evans*Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream * *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE * *http://blog.butchevans.com/*Wired or wireless Networks* *Mikrotik Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer* WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.
Yeah. And out here Century Tel gets $60 to $109 per month (depending on who you talk to) per pots line in USF funds. Gee, I wonder why they require a pots line for DSL And they can sell DSL at retail rates at or below the wholesale rates. Man, what I could do with an extra $100 per month per sub! marlon - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 8:22 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need. DSL is mostly gravy. It gets shared through NECA in many cases, but it doesn't so much to support the local loop. - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 8:54 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need. Well, not quite. A tarrifed pots line pays for the wire in the ground and the upkeep. DSL is gravy. Or did I miss something? marlon - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 7:53 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need. Not true. Not true at all. Cable Companies are not rate of return regulated. Every dollar they spend is below the line. The ILECS are strictly regulated as to what can be spent above the line. Tarrifed rates ONLY support tarrifed services. - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 11:52 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need. Why not? Isn't that kinda what Cable Cos and ILECs Do? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 2:37 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need. The power company wants to take rate payer money and build a broadband network that will contact each meter for the purpose of managing energy. It will also supply broadband to the homeowner if they want. This should not be allowed. - Original Message - From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:34 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need. Chuck McCown wrote: Time to speak up. Anyone care to translate this for those among us who don't speak lawyerese, and who don't live/work in Indiana? David Smith MVN.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Mike Hammett wrote: Right, but my point was that Mikrotik doesn't need to be worrying about virtualization. They need to put some more work into QA and USEFUL feature expansion, like into 802.11 and 802.16, not Xen. You don't think XEN can be useful? I have it in testing now on 2 unique types of deployments that will save me about $340 PER location (possibly over 2000 locations)...I find it pretty useful...if it works, that is. -- *Butch Evans*Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream * *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE * *http://blog.butchevans.com/*Wired or wireless Networks* *Mikrotik Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer* WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field
I think I mentioned last week that we were going to be doing testing with Aperto gear. We were so impressed that we are finishing up the paperwork to become a VAR for them (not sure if any of the other VAR's on the list are). I've been a skeptic of 3.65 WiMAX since the day it was mentioned too me... basically the too good to be true type thing. Everyone else in the company thought really the same thing. Field testing, while not nearly as extensive as others have done on this list (we are limited by the tower location i.e. the roof of the building, we had to play with) but 5 miles near line of sight at full modulation was no problem. We were even getting 6Mb or so through our metal roof, with the sector pointing 180 degrees away. When I try that with a 5.2GHz Canopy SM we are lucky if it connects! We were sold on Aperto by CPE cost, the EMS management system, and the company background (Aperto is one of the big players on the international market). I'd be happy to shoot a quote to anyone that is interested. I'll be attending the technical training along with Dave Kennedy on Aug 6th to really grasp what this equipment can do. So far I have been really impressed (but the Tranzeo looking CPE case has to go, which they are promising me is on its way out) Anyways my 2 cents... another critic convinced Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John McDowell Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 8:30 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field Depends, sub $10,000. Boun Senekham at CTI can help you with a quote if you're interested: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 8:38 PM, Brian Rohrbacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What about APs? John McDowell wrote: I hear RedMax is coming down in price on CPEs when you buy a pallet of 72. Sub $400. Mike, I'm interested to know what Alvarion is pricing the 3.65 gear now that it is available. Have they come down at all? On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Brian Rohrbacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, how much does this stuff cost? Brian John McDowell wrote: I believe it. Today we had a 1.5 mile shot through dense trees using Redline Redmax 3.65. Customer was getting close to 500k upload. Signal held steady at 88db on a 1-story house. On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Mike Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Many of you have known me for years, some wish they didn't :-). I am the doubting Thomas type and have to test myself before I recommend products to a client. Lets just say that Thomas was satisfied. Now the clients are echoing the same and that is what drives my wagon. Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mike At 08:52 PM 7/21/2008, you wrote: Same here, I thought it was all marketing hype, if it works like the poster mentioned, we will need to consider moving up our timetable for evaluating wimax, 10k a basestation suddenly isn't that bad with the performance described. Regards Michael Baird Now this is a 180* of what others have told me, even others offering traditional, D, and E products. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutionshttp://www.ics-il.com Mike Cowan Wireless Connections A Division of ACC 166 Milan Ave Norwalk, OH 44857 419-660-6100 419-706-7348 [EMAIL PROTECTED] WISPA Wants You! Join today!http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today!http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- John M. McDowell Boonlink Communications 307 Grand Ave NW Fort Payne, AL 35967 256.844.9932 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.boonlink.com This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy,
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
If you needed virtualization of some type, you could install it as the host OS, then install your Mikrotik or Asterisk or... on top. I guess I meant things that we can't already get somewhere else. Mikrotik themselves has to do a lot of things, but we can do Xen on our own. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Butch Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 10:12 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Mike Hammett wrote: Right, but my point was that Mikrotik doesn't need to be worrying about virtualization. They need to put some more work into QA and USEFUL feature expansion, like into 802.11 and 802.16, not Xen. You don't think XEN can be useful? I have it in testing now on 2 unique types of deployments that will save me about $340 PER location (possibly over 2000 locations)...I find it pretty useful...if it works, that is. -- *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering *MikroTik RouterOS* *573-276-2879 *ImageStream * *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE * *http://blog.butchevans.com/*Wired or wireless Networks* *Mikrotik Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer* WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Hi, I would have bet any amount of money that I saw "polling" as an option in the AirOS stuff... but now that I am looking for it, I can't seem to find it. :( Travis Randy Cosby wrote: Where is the polling you refer to? Is that in the beta firmware or something? I haven't noticed it. Randy Travis Johnson wrote: The AirOS that comes on the Nanostations also has polling the issue is having a product that is compatible and has the features that people are already used to. Having Mikrotik on the Nano's would open up a whole new world. Travis Gino Villarini wrote: Well you all have the option to flash the nanostations with oswave firmware. The oswave has polling... gino -Original Message- From: Matt Larsen - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:21 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Travis Johnson wrote: Matt, I agree with almost everything you said... except the polling part. Having a robust, efficient polling system is the best thing available for outdoor wireless. That is one of the main reasons we are now using Mikrotik is because of their Nstreme and polling system. We are finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does work. How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the AP (on the upload side). Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an upload running. Um, bandwidth limiting? As long as the AP has the upload speed coming from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity of the pipe, its not a problem. I'm doing the test right now, and I have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter. What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :) Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Microserv Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Hi Travis, I'm with you - the Nanostations are a pretty amazing product. I've been deploying Nanostations on 10mhz channels in 2.4 and 5ghz with StarOS access points and the performance/interference resistance is pretty amazing at ANY price point. I could say the same thing for the newer Tranzeo CPE units as well, but they can't match up with the Ubiquity price point just yet. It is neat to see a product with many of the Canopy advantages (rich features, small footprint, inexpensive to produce, good interference resistance) that is compatible with the 802.11a/b/g standards and thus able to take advantage of the very innovative Mikrotik and StarOS platforms. I'm curious to see if someone comes up with a good reflector for the Nanostation radios. That would enable the use of the adaptive antenna mode, and since StarOS has the ability to switch connectors on the fly - and potentially polarity if hooked up to a dual-pol antenna - you would end up with a standards based product that would have nearly every feature that the Trangos had that made them special (noise threshold at the AP, software switchable polarity, site survey, etc). No polling, but that is one of the most overrated features anyway. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I would agree... I think there is an opportunity as well. There are some new products in the market recently (Ubiquiti Nanostation) that could shake things up a little. Getting an FCC product with PoE and a Ubiquiti quality radio for $79 is pretty amazing (I will be testing some this coming week). It really makes you wonder how much money some of these companies can really have into a radio system (Trango, Canopy, etc.) when Ubiquiti can sell a brand new product for $79 MSRP. Granted there are not a lot of "bells and whistles", but honestly most of the WISP's out there don't need that. If you can buy a radio for $79, you can put whatever you need behind it (Cisco, Mikrotik, etc.) and still be less than $200 for a nice CPE. I think Trango's first mistake was the "mesh" game they
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Maybe you got confused with the OSwave firmware Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 12:11 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Hi, I would have bet any amount of money that I saw polling as an option in the AirOS stuff... but now that I am looking for it, I can't seem to find it. :( Travis Randy Cosby wrote: Where is the polling you refer to? Is that in the beta firmware or something? I haven't noticed it. Randy Travis Johnson wrote: The AirOS that comes on the Nanostations also has polling the issue is having a product that is compatible and has the features that people are already used to. Having Mikrotik on the Nano's would open up a whole new world. Travis Gino Villarini wrote: Well you all have the option to flash the nanostations with oswave firmware. The oswave has polling... gino -Original Message- From: Matt Larsen - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:21 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org mailto:wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Travis Johnson wrote: Matt, I agree with almost everything you said... except the polling part. Having a robust, efficient polling system is the best thing available for outdoor wireless. That is one of the main reasons we are now using Mikrotik is because of their Nstreme and polling system. We are finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does work. How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the AP (on the upload side). Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an upload running. Um, bandwidth limiting? As long as the AP has the upload speed coming from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity of the pipe, its not a problem. I'm doing the test right now, and I have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter. What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :) Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Microserv Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Hi Travis, I'm with you - the Nanostations are a pretty amazing product. I've been deploying Nanostations on 10mhz channels in 2.4 and 5ghz with StarOS access points and the performance/interference resistance is pretty amazing at
Re: [WISPA] The nanostation thing....
I can't say whether I'm interested in your ideas yet or not. But unless you wanted to develop syncronization or some specific function of a centralized server for the base stations I don't see the point of adding the additional complexity. Canopy for example has synconization without the need for additional 'controllers'. Mikrotik's RB433AH have a *LOT* of extra cpu(from our expereinces) and they're only $150ea! Have you thought of using 802.11n/MIMO on the downstream with dual polarized setup? It's too bad we didn't have an FDD spectrum allocated to WISPs where there were channels dedicated to upstream and downstream. Almost exlusively we use FDD for PTPs as opposed to HDX for a handfull of reasons. Similar benefits exist in PTMP situations... Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Doug Ratcliffe wrote: But the control point would be at the tower, not remote. I know some WISPs operate in remote areas, but this is more for a high density urban deployment, similar to what you would use AirSpan or Alvarion for. The reasoning behind the FDD style deployment would be to help compete against 10Mbps+ cable connections. Right now a 6 AP deployment usually has about 10Mbps for each AP (Canopy, Trango). My thought is to transmit-sync a 50Mbps (40mhz turbo-mode) signal, with the vision that you could give fiber speeds wirelessly. Or, with 50Mbps of bandwidth (per sector) it would give you the ability to serve thousands of subscribers in a high density deployment. The other though would be to be able to multicast MPEG4 video over it. My vision is to keep us being able to compete with cable DSL for years to come without spending a fortune. If an open source system could interface with 6 NS5's ($600) plus a rackmount PC ($1000), that's a Wimax-style QOS deployment for less than the price of a single Canopy unit. The other thought is that single NS5's are 802.11 and have no ability to transmit sync (i.e. share frequencies) like other systems do. By giving it the ability to do that, you have an inexpensive hardware platform with $1 per AP features. - Original Message - From: Charles Wyble [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 1:57 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] The nanostation thing Doug Ratcliffe wrote: My thoughts on this I've even mentied on the Mikrotik forum a while ago were to have a 2 part system: An outdoor wireless unit (like a Nanostation) that does nothing but act as a raw wireless interface, that connects to a master station inside the tower control room that is the intelligence, like Wimax-style QoS, polling, VOIP control etc. Isn't that how the Cisco solution works with a Wireless Lan Controller? This works great in campus environments which usually have a 100mbps or gigabit wired backbone, but not necessarily in WISP type deployments. In the case of a WISP you may have an exclusive wireless network (wireless link between CPE and aggregation point with WiMAX or other RF back haul ). or a hybrid model (wireless link between CPE and aggregation point with DSL/T1 back haul). Having the additional network infrastructure overhead on networks carrying customer traffic may or may not saturate your pipe. If you have the money to build separate control and data paths great! The outside part could be connected via network switch to allow a failover master control unit. Certainly. You want a reliable core. I would think the inside part would be a rack mountable Intel/AMD server or even an inexpensive workstation (since even a $250 computer has 20x the CPU power of a Nanostation). Certainly. Perhaps something like a mini ITX server. It would also allow the ability to sync AP broadcast, and maybe even include GPS sync capability. That would allow the outdoor unit to be minimal in flash and CPU speed but still allow high speed communications. Taken further into a 6x60 deg NS2/NS5 AP tower, combine that with mesh for tower to tower communications and have a Skypilot system on steroids (tower to tower routing with no hop loss). Interesting. Didn't quite follow all that, but I will research it. I had taken the idea to a second level having a FDD-style system with a separate transmit unit and recieve unit outdoors where the CPE would simply switch frequencies or polarities to recieve their packets, and switch again to transmit. Seems like a massive amount of overhead. What would the reasons and advantages/disadvantages for such an approach be? That could allow for a 40mhz-turbo mode broadcast (GPS synced) with 5mhz channel upstream. My thoughts were having the capability of sending out 50Mbps+ downstream to clients (assuming a dumb wireless driver would be very light on CPU usage compared to, say, a Mikrotik unit that does everything but cook
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Visualization? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Dennis Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 11:56 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Very seriously doubt they will be dropping support for x86. Seeing that they just introduced visualization only offered on the x86 platform! Scottie Arnett wrote: DD-WRT and OpenWRT pretty much already do this for quite a few chipsets. They are not near the software as Mikrotik or StarOS is...but, if Mikrotikl drops support for x86, I would not be suprised if they or a new project starts very quickly to serve that need. Scott -- Original Message -- From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:01:19 -0600 I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this. - Original Message - From: Japhy Bartlett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book.. Remember how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game? How the company that wrote software for specific hardware lost - hard? For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good code already written and being developed? Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin. solution. I.e., Windows and Apple. Look at how the PC market converged towards x86! If Mikrotik or some of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to port every stinking firmware flavor. Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful business model .. ever? And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, well this firmware does X better. Is there anything particularly different between Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS? - japhy And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon. On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS. I don't understand why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40. Hardware has to be manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent. If they are already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost. People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint. Even with an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE. That is $10 less than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure. It would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE. If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend market and finally have certified gear out there. The upgrade path would be perfect for their hardware. They would sell the AP hardware as well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and still make $40/CPE on the cheap end. And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS network. I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after manufacture and shipping. I really don't see the downside to this, especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti really expressed and interest in working with them. Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested... Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Matt Ferre wrote: Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly see why. Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No, their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never ever. On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote: Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support
Re: [WISPA] Tower Climber Salary (insurance, etc.)
If I could split off this topic to something very related. What insurance/workers comp are being held to legally employ climbers? I'm assuming two climbers minimum are on staff? We are getting to the point where it would benefit us to have our own climbers but the decision makers are intimidated by the logistics of keeping such a high risk position on payroll. Suggestions? Dylan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John McDowell Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 12:34 AM To: motorola; WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Tower Climber Salary I'm looking for a replacement and have a fella on board I'm sending to ComTrain. What is a competitive climbing salary for someone just starting out? -- John M. McDowell Boonlink Communications 307 Grand Ave NW Fort Payne, AL 35967 256.844.9932 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.boonlink.com This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy, re-transmit, or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and delete the message. E-mail communication is highly susceptible to spoofing, spamming, and other tampering, some of which may be harmful to your computer. If you are concerned about the authenticity of the message or the source, please contact the sender directly. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.0/1558 - Release Date: 7/17/2008 9:56 AM WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Spell checker must have got Dennis. He meant Virtualization (Zen). So now you can have your router, Asterisk, billing, mail server, web server all on one Mikrotik box. Obviously it will take a beefy unit like the PR 2282 to do this. Jim// Mike Hammett wrote: Visualization? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Dennis Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 11:56 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Very seriously doubt they will be dropping support for x86. Seeing that they just introduced visualization only offered on the x86 platform! Scottie Arnett wrote: DD-WRT and OpenWRT pretty much already do this for quite a few chipsets. They are not near the software as Mikrotik or StarOS is...but, if Mikrotikl drops support for x86, I would not be suprised if they or a new project starts very quickly to serve that need. Scott -- Original Message -- From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:01:19 -0600 I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this. - Original Message - From: Japhy Bartlett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book.. Remember how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game? How the company that wrote software for specific hardware lost - hard? For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good code already written and being developed? Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin. solution. I.e., Windows and Apple. Look at how the PC market converged towards x86! If Mikrotik or some of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to port every stinking firmware flavor. Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful business model .. ever? And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, well this firmware does X better. Is there anything particularly different between Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS? - japhy And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon. On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS. I don't understand why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40. Hardware has to be manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent. If they are already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost. People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint. Even with an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE. That is $10 less than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure. It would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE. If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend market and finally have certified gear out there. The upgrade path would be perfect for their hardware. They would sell the AP hardware as well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and still make $40/CPE on the cheap end. And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS network. I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after manufacture and shipping. I really don't see the downside to this, especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti really expressed and interest in working with them. Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested... Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Matt Ferre wrote: Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly see why. Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No, their Routerboard
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
So let me get this right... Instead of working on wireless drivers, improving the existing feature set, stabilizing the whole router, etc. Mikrotik has been working on making your router virtual server host? Before I complain directly to Mikrotik, could you point me to something official saying that is out? Why don't they add on Media Center capability so I can store movies and TV shows on my router and stream them to my XBox, or heck, let me plug in a TV so I can play them directly from the router? Maybe they could just directly integrate with an XBox 360 and a DirecTV? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Jim Patient [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 8:00 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Spell checker must have got Dennis. He meant Virtualization (Zen). So now you can have your router, Asterisk, billing, mail server, web server all on one Mikrotik box. Obviously it will take a beefy unit like the PR 2282 to do this. Jim// Mike Hammett wrote: Visualization? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Dennis Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 11:56 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Very seriously doubt they will be dropping support for x86. Seeing that they just introduced visualization only offered on the x86 platform! Scottie Arnett wrote: DD-WRT and OpenWRT pretty much already do this for quite a few chipsets. They are not near the software as Mikrotik or StarOS is...but, if Mikrotikl drops support for x86, I would not be suprised if they or a new project starts very quickly to serve that need. Scott -- Original Message -- From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:01:19 -0600 I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this. - Original Message - From: Japhy Bartlett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book.. Remember how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game? How the company that wrote software for specific hardware lost - hard? For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good code already written and being developed? Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin. solution. I.e., Windows and Apple. Look at how the PC market converged towards x86! If Mikrotik or some of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to port every stinking firmware flavor. Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful business model .. ever? And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, well this firmware does X better. Is there anything particularly different between Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS? - japhy And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon. On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS. I don't understand why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40. Hardware has to be manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent. If they are already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost. People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint. Even with an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE. That is $10 less than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure. It would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE. If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend market and finally have certified gear out there. The upgrade path would be perfect for their hardware. They would sell the AP
Re: [WISPA] Tower Climber Salary (insurance, etc.)
Keep them classified as general install technicians that spend less than 10% of their time on a tower (which is true for most WISPs) To have true workman's comp / insurance for full-time tower crews -- you're insurance bills will jump to the tens of thousands of -Charles --- WiNOG Wireless Roadshows Coming to a City Near You http://www.winog.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dylan Bouterse Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 7:25 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower Climber Salary (insurance, etc.) If I could split off this topic to something very related. What insurance/workers comp are being held to legally employ climbers? I'm assuming two climbers minimum are on staff? We are getting to the point where it would benefit us to have our own climbers but the decision makers are intimidated by the logistics of keeping such a high risk position on payroll. Suggestions? Dylan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John McDowell Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 12:34 AM To: motorola; WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Tower Climber Salary I'm looking for a replacement and have a fella on board I'm sending to ComTrain. What is a competitive climbing salary for someone just starting out? -- John M. McDowell Boonlink Communications 307 Grand Ave NW Fort Payne, AL 35967 256.844.9932 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.boonlink.com This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy, re-transmit, or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and delete the message. E-mail communication is highly susceptible to spoofing, spamming, and other tampering, some of which may be harmful to your computer. If you are concerned about the authenticity of the message or the source, please contact the sender directly. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.0/1558 - Release Date: 7/17/2008 9:56 AM WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tower Climber Salary (insurance, etc.)
And DON'T have documentation where you show them as tower climbers. \ Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. - Original Message - From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower Climber Salary (insurance, etc.) Keep them classified as general install technicians that spend less than 10% of their time on a tower (which is true for most WISPs) To have true workman's comp / insurance for full-time tower crews -- you're insurance bills will jump to the tens of thousands of -Charles --- WiNOG Wireless Roadshows Coming to a City Near You http://www.winog.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dylan Bouterse Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 7:25 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower Climber Salary (insurance, etc.) If I could split off this topic to something very related. What insurance/workers comp are being held to legally employ climbers? I'm assuming two climbers minimum are on staff? We are getting to the point where it would benefit us to have our own climbers but the decision makers are intimidated by the logistics of keeping such a high risk position on payroll. Suggestions? Dylan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John McDowell Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 12:34 AM To: motorola; WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Tower Climber Salary I'm looking for a replacement and have a fella on board I'm sending to ComTrain. What is a competitive climbing salary for someone just starting out? -- John M. McDowell Boonlink Communications 307 Grand Ave NW Fort Payne, AL 35967 256.844.9932 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.boonlink.com This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy, re-transmit, or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and delete the message. E-mail communication is highly susceptible to spoofing, spamming, and other tampering, some of which may be harmful to your computer. If you are concerned about the authenticity of the message or the source, please contact the sender directly. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.0/1558 - Release Date: 7/17/2008 9:56 AM WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
I agree... and I actually emailed their support group last night before this message even came out about the EXACT same thing... they seem really hung up on adding new features instead of fixing or improving the real issues. Travis Microserv Mike Hammett wrote: So let me get this right... Instead of working on wireless drivers, improving the existing feature set, stabilizing the whole router, etc. Mikrotik has been working on making your router virtual server host? Before I complain directly to Mikrotik, could you point me to something official saying that is out? Why don't they add on Media Center capability so I can store movies and TV shows on my router and stream them to my XBox, or heck, let me plug in a TV so I can play them directly from the router? Maybe they could just directly integrate with an XBox 360 and a DirecTV? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Jim Patient" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "WISPA General List" wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 8:00 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Spell checker must have got Dennis. He meant Virtualization (Zen). So now you can have your router, Asterisk, billing, mail server, web server all on one Mikrotik box. Obviously it will take a beefy unit like the PR 2282 to do this. Jim// Mike Hammett wrote: Visualization? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Dennis Burgess" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "WISPA General List" wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 11:56 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Very seriously doubt they will be dropping support for x86. Seeing that they just introduced visualization only offered on the x86 platform! Scottie Arnett wrote: DD-WRT and OpenWRT pretty much already do this for quite a few chipsets. They are not near the software as Mikrotik or StarOS is...but, if Mikrotikl drops support for x86, I would not be suprised if they or a new project starts very quickly to serve that need. Scott -- Original Message -- From: "Chuck McCown - 3" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:01:19 -0600 I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this. - Original Message - From: "Japhy Bartlett" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "WISPA General List" wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book.. Remember how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game? How the company that wrote software for specific hardware lost - hard? For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good code already written and being developed? Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin. solution. I.e., Windows and Apple. Look at how the PC market converged towards x86! If Mikrotik or some of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to "port" every stinking firmware flavor. Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful business model .. ever? And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, "well this firmware does X better". Is there anything particularly different between Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS? - japhy And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon. On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS. I don't understand why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40. Hardware has to be manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent. If they are already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost. People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint. Even with an additional $40
Re: [WISPA] Tower Climber Salary (insurance, etc.)
As with everything insurance related, make sure they know about everything it is that they do, but do your best to minimize exposure to the high cost policies. You wouldn't want to leave out the fact that they climb towers twice a month and then have a tower related claim, which gets denied. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower Climber Salary (insurance, etc.) Keep them classified as general install technicians that spend less than 10% of their time on a tower (which is true for most WISPs) To have true workman's comp / insurance for full-time tower crews -- you're insurance bills will jump to the tens of thousands of -Charles --- WiNOG Wireless Roadshows Coming to a City Near You http://www.winog.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dylan Bouterse Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 7:25 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower Climber Salary (insurance, etc.) If I could split off this topic to something very related. What insurance/workers comp are being held to legally employ climbers? I'm assuming two climbers minimum are on staff? We are getting to the point where it would benefit us to have our own climbers but the decision makers are intimidated by the logistics of keeping such a high risk position on payroll. Suggestions? Dylan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John McDowell Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 12:34 AM To: motorola; WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Tower Climber Salary I'm looking for a replacement and have a fella on board I'm sending to ComTrain. What is a competitive climbing salary for someone just starting out? -- John M. McDowell Boonlink Communications 307 Grand Ave NW Fort Payne, AL 35967 256.844.9932 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.boonlink.com This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy, re-transmit, or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and delete the message. E-mail communication is highly susceptible to spoofing, spamming, and other tampering, some of which may be harmful to your computer. If you are concerned about the authenticity of the message or the source, please contact the sender directly. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.0/1558 - Release Date: 7/17/2008 9:56 AM WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.
Well, not quite. A tarrifed pots line pays for the wire in the ground and the upkeep. DSL is gravy. Or did I miss something? marlon - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 7:53 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need. Not true. Not true at all. Cable Companies are not rate of return regulated. Every dollar they spend is below the line. The ILECS are strictly regulated as to what can be spent above the line. Tarrifed rates ONLY support tarrifed services. - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 11:52 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need. Why not? Isn't that kinda what Cable Cos and ILECs Do? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 2:37 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need. The power company wants to take rate payer money and build a broadband network that will contact each meter for the purpose of managing energy. It will also supply broadband to the homeowner if they want. This should not be allowed. - Original Message - From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:34 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need. Chuck McCown wrote: Time to speak up. Anyone care to translate this for those among us who don't speak lawyerese, and who don't live/work in Indiana? David Smith MVN.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.
DSL is mostly gravy. It gets shared through NECA in many cases, but it doesn't so much to support the local loop. - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 8:54 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need. Well, not quite. A tarrifed pots line pays for the wire in the ground and the upkeep. DSL is gravy. Or did I miss something? marlon - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 7:53 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need. Not true. Not true at all. Cable Companies are not rate of return regulated. Every dollar they spend is below the line. The ILECS are strictly regulated as to what can be spent above the line. Tarrifed rates ONLY support tarrifed services. - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 11:52 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need. Why not? Isn't that kinda what Cable Cos and ILECs Do? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 2:37 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need. The power company wants to take rate payer money and build a broadband network that will contact each meter for the purpose of managing energy. It will also supply broadband to the homeowner if they want. This should not be allowed. - Original Message - From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:34 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need. Chuck McCown wrote: Time to speak up. Anyone care to translate this for those among us who don't speak lawyerese, and who don't live/work in Indiana? David Smith MVN.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
On Jul 20, 2008, at 11:00 AM, Gino Villarini wrote: Thay just need to add a couple of features to the t45... Better ethernet configuration options 5 10 40 channels support gino DD-WRT has Ubiquity versions now. Didn't have much luck with it as a client (on a NS5), but haven't tried it at the AP. -- Bryan WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
No Mike, not just our systems, any x86 system. That is why we don't think they are ending x86 support any time soon. The package is in testing now and hasn't been officially released. Mikrotik continually works to improve the OS. They normally respond well to bugs and fixes. They take votes from users on feature requests. You can vote at: http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/MikroTik_RouterOS/v3/Feature_Requests Jim Mike Hammett wrote: So let me get this right... Instead of working on wireless drivers, improving the existing feature set, stabilizing the whole router, etc. Mikrotik has been working on making your router virtual server host? Before I complain directly to Mikrotik, could you point me to something official saying that is out? Why don't they add on Media Center capability so I can store movies and TV shows on my router and stream them to my XBox, or heck, let me plug in a TV so I can play them directly from the router? Maybe they could just directly integrate with an XBox 360 and a DirecTV? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Jim Patient [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 8:00 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Spell checker must have got Dennis. He meant Virtualization (Zen). So now you can have your router, Asterisk, billing, mail server, web server all on one Mikrotik box. Obviously it will take a beefy unit like the PR 2282 to do this. Jim// Mike Hammett wrote: Visualization? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Dennis Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 11:56 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Very seriously doubt they will be dropping support for x86. Seeing that they just introduced visualization only offered on the x86 platform! Scottie Arnett wrote: DD-WRT and OpenWRT pretty much already do this for quite a few chipsets. They are not near the software as Mikrotik or StarOS is...but, if Mikrotikl drops support for x86, I would not be suprised if they or a new project starts very quickly to serve that need. Scott -- Original Message -- From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:01:19 -0600 I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this. - Original Message - From: Japhy Bartlett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book.. Remember how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game? How the company that wrote software for specific hardware lost - hard? For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good code already written and being developed? Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin. solution. I.e., Windows and Apple. Look at how the PC market converged towards x86! If Mikrotik or some of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to port every stinking firmware flavor. Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful business model .. ever? And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, well this firmware does X better. Is there anything particularly different between Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS? - japhy And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon. On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS. I don't understand why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40. Hardware has to be manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent. If they are already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional
[WISPA] The nanostation thing....
A year or two ago I had this idea that's related to our discussions... In short, it was to create a open source platform for WISP use. I called it WISP-OS. All the functions of routing, firewalling, dhcp client and server, and all the other networking functions are out there and consistently being improved in the open source community. What, however, is needed is not another implementation of routing or firewalls, but deep down fundamental efforts to improve the drivers for the common, cheap chipsets. I got several interested parties including developers and WISP's, but the obstacle is the funding. The reason you need substantial funding: The wireless driver holds the key here. You need the license from Atheros, and that alone is a serious chunk of money. We came up with a couple of viable methods of making the idea work. The driver development has to keep the Atheros sources closed, and like other people have done, fundamental adjustment of the MAC would be the ultimate function. I saw this coming down the road when then software companies were moving toward becoming a closed hardware/software platform. The idea was to produce a licensable driver that could be integrated into any new hardware that might come down the pike, and put research into development of features that could be universally shared. Right now, each developer has created their own 'non interoperable' feature set. So you want WiMax? Great. Only the basic feature set is interoperable among all. Anyway, the purpose was to let WISP's guide the direction of development. So, you want to use the cheap NanoStation? No problem. The open source community has almost everything needed. And each hardware platform could have any/all advanced features. So, instead of Star-OS having great performance, but only with itself, same with MikroTik, any hardware platform could share a full feature set. This would require considerable funding, to do this development, but that funding would be obtained from per-unit licensing scheme... something not expensive per unit. Also, since it mostly would be comprised of open source software, the development for each new board or cpu could be done by individuals or even small g roups or companies, and only the licensed, closed wireless driver would have to be paid development. The initial cost for this could be born by 50 wisp's and be relatively small. The largest initial obstacle is the Atheros license cost... But, this would spur movement toward much greater interoperability - or at least the possibility of greater interoperability. So, while each hardware platform developer is re-inventing the wheel... It would no longer need to be done...simply license a great set of features that are driven by the WISP's who guide the development... As WiMax modules become more available, the same kind of driver/licensing system could be done for it, too. The same economies of scale and competitive production could apply to WIMAX as they have done for the 802.11 platform - specifically Atheros... This empowers individual wisp's to become legal integrators, like the modular fcc approval has done for Star-OS and others. Like I said, this idea is an old one for me, one I gave up on because nobody seemed to be interested, but it IS a viable notion and if this had been started back then, it would now be the key solution to much of the consternation now . insert witty tagline here WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] The nanostation thing....
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In short, it was to create a open source platform for WISP use. I called it WISP-OS. All the functions of routing, firewalling, dhcp client and server, and all the other networking functions are out there and consistently being improved in the open source community. Very true. See http://www.zeroshell.org/ for a fantastic turn key solution. What, however, is needed is not another implementation of routing or firewalls, Amen to that. :) but deep down fundamental efforts to improve the drivers for the common, cheap chipsets. Right. Madwifi ( http://madwifi.org/ ) is pretty good but having trouble keeping up with new Atheros models. I got several interested parties including developers and WISP's, but the obstacle is the funding. The reason you need substantial funding: The wireless driver holds the key here. You need the license from Atheros, and that alone is a serious chunk of money. We came up with a couple of viable methods of making the idea work. The driver development has to keep the Atheros sources closed, and like other people have done, fundamental adjustment of the MAC would be the ultimate function. So what exactly are you referring to here which requires a license? The IP core? The HAL? I saw this coming down the road when then software companies were moving toward becoming a closed hardware/software platform. The idea was to produce a licensable driver that could be integrated into any new hardware that might come down the pike, and put research into development of features that could be universally shared. Right. Like a large majority of open source projects solving horizontal market problems. :) Right now, each developer has created their own 'non interoperable' feature set. So you want WiMax? Great. Only the basic feature set is interoperable among all. Yep. Anyway, the purpose was to let WISP's guide the direction of development. So, you want to use the cheap NanoStation? No problem. The open source community has almost everything needed. And each hardware platform could have any/all advanced features. So, instead of Star-OS having great performance, but only with itself, same with MikroTik, any hardware platform could share a full feature set. Well to a certain extent software controls a lot of things, but hardware certainly plays a part. Better antennas, more ram/cpu, FPGA etc. This would require considerable funding, to do this development, but that funding would be obtained from per-unit licensing scheme... something not expensive per unit. Also, since it mostly would be comprised of open source software, the development for each new board or cpu could be done by individuals or even small g roups or companies, and only the licensed, closed wireless driver would have to be paid development. The initial cost for this could be born by 50 wisp's and be relatively small. The largest initial obstacle is the Atheros license cost... But, this would spur movement toward much greater interoper Again not sure what license cost you are referring to. Any links or information you could provide would be of interest. Thanks! -- Charles Wyble (818) 280 - 7059 http://charlesnw.blogspot.com CTO Known Element Enterprises / SoCal WiFI project WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] The nanostation thing....
My thoughts on this I've even mentied on the Mikrotik forum a while ago were to have a 2 part system: An outdoor wireless unit (like a Nanostation) that does nothing but act as a raw wireless interface, that connects to a master station inside the tower control room that is the intelligence, like Wimax-style QoS, polling, VOIP control etc. The outside part could be connected via network switch to allow a failover master control unit. I would think the inside part would be a rack mountable Intel/AMD server or even an inexpensive workstation (since even a $250 computer has 20x the CPU power of a Nanostation). It would also allow the ability to sync AP broadcast, and maybe even include GPS sync capability. That would allow the outdoor unit to be minimal in flash and CPU speed but still allow high speed communications. Taken further into a 6x60 deg NS2/NS5 AP tower, combine that with mesh for tower to tower communications and have a Skypilot system on steroids (tower to tower routing with no hop loss). I had taken the idea to a second level having a FDD-style system with a separate transmit unit and recieve unit outdoors where the CPE would simply switch frequencies or polarities to recieve their packets, and switch again to transmit. With the NS2/NS5 dual polarity antennas that's something that would be doable vs. my original idea of using the 2ft dishes and dual polarity LNBs. That could allow for a 40mhz-turbo mode broadcast (GPS synced) with 5mhz channel upstream. My thoughts were having the capability of sending out 50Mbps+ downstream to clients (assuming a dumb wireless driver would be very light on CPU usage compared to, say, a Mikrotik unit that does everything but cook your breakfast). I tried some concept stuff using MadWifi but without CSMA/CD disable, 5/10 mhz channel support, etc it was kinda pointless. The separate TX/RX channels came as a crutch idea for CSMA/CD because you could tell the unit that it is recieving on a disconnected antenna for the transmitter unit (so it would never detect carrier). In theory, it's basically like piping the raw wireless data directly into the eth0 interface. Nothing else on the outdoor part, all of the intelligence is in the indoor portion of the unit. Anyone like it? - Original Message - From: Charles Wyble [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 1:17 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] The nanostation thing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In short, it was to create a open source platform for WISP use. I called it WISP-OS. All the functions of routing, firewalling, dhcp client and server, and all the other networking functions are out there and consistently being improved in the open source community. Very true. See http://www.zeroshell.org/ for a fantastic turn key solution. What, however, is needed is not another implementation of routing or firewalls, Amen to that. :) but deep down fundamental efforts to improve the drivers for the common, cheap chipsets. Right. Madwifi ( http://madwifi.org/ ) is pretty good but having trouble keeping up with new Atheros models. I got several interested parties including developers and WISP's, but the obstacle is the funding. The reason you need substantial funding: The wireless driver holds the key here. You need the license from Atheros, and that alone is a serious chunk of money. We came up with a couple of viable methods of making the idea work. The driver development has to keep the Atheros sources closed, and like other people have done, fundamental adjustment of the MAC would be the ultimate function. So what exactly are you referring to here which requires a license? The IP core? The HAL? I saw this coming down the road when then software companies were moving toward becoming a closed hardware/software platform. The idea was to produce a licensable driver that could be integrated into any new hardware that might come down the pike, and put research into development of features that could be universally shared. Right. Like a large majority of open source projects solving horizontal market problems. :) Right now, each developer has created their own 'non interoperable' feature set. So you want WiMax? Great. Only the basic feature set is interoperable among all. Yep. Anyway, the purpose was to let WISP's guide the direction of development. So, you want to use the cheap NanoStation? No problem. The open source community has almost everything needed. And each hardware platform could have any/all advanced features. So, instead of Star-OS having great performance, but only with itself, same with MikroTik, any hardware platform could share a full feature set. Well to a certain extent software controls a lot of things, but hardware certainly plays a part. Better antennas, more ram/cpu, FPGA etc. This would require considerable
Re: [WISPA] The nanostation thing....
Doug Ratcliffe wrote: My thoughts on this I've even mentied on the Mikrotik forum a while ago were to have a 2 part system: An outdoor wireless unit (like a Nanostation) that does nothing but act as a raw wireless interface, that connects to a master station inside the tower control room that is the intelligence, like Wimax-style QoS, polling, VOIP control etc. Isn't that how the Cisco solution works with a Wireless Lan Controller? This works great in campus environments which usually have a 100mbps or gigabit wired backbone, but not necessarily in WISP type deployments. In the case of a WISP you may have an exclusive wireless network (wireless link between CPE and aggregation point with WiMAX or other RF back haul ). or a hybrid model (wireless link between CPE and aggregation point with DSL/T1 back haul). Having the additional network infrastructure overhead on networks carrying customer traffic may or may not saturate your pipe. If you have the money to build separate control and data paths great! The outside part could be connected via network switch to allow a failover master control unit. Certainly. You want a reliable core. I would think the inside part would be a rack mountable Intel/AMD server or even an inexpensive workstation (since even a $250 computer has 20x the CPU power of a Nanostation). Certainly. Perhaps something like a mini ITX server. It would also allow the ability to sync AP broadcast, and maybe even include GPS sync capability. That would allow the outdoor unit to be minimal in flash and CPU speed but still allow high speed communications. Taken further into a 6x60 deg NS2/NS5 AP tower, combine that with mesh for tower to tower communications and have a Skypilot system on steroids (tower to tower routing with no hop loss). Interesting. Didn't quite follow all that, but I will research it. I had taken the idea to a second level having a FDD-style system with a separate transmit unit and recieve unit outdoors where the CPE would simply switch frequencies or polarities to recieve their packets, and switch again to transmit. Seems like a massive amount of overhead. What would the reasons and advantages/disadvantages for such an approach be? That could allow for a 40mhz-turbo mode broadcast (GPS synced) with 5mhz channel upstream. My thoughts were having the capability of sending out 50Mbps+ downstream to clients (assuming a dumb wireless driver would be very light on CPU usage compared to, say, a Mikrotik unit that does everything but cook your breakfast). mmhmm. I tried some concept stuff using MadWifi but without CSMA/CD disable, 5/10 mhz channel support, etc it was kinda pointless. The separate TX/RX channels came as a crutch idea for CSMA/CD because you could tell the unit that it is recieving on a disconnected antenna for the transmitter unit (so it would never detect carrier). In theory, it's basically like piping the raw wireless data directly into the eth0 interface. Nothing else on the outdoor part, all of the intelligence is in the indoor portion of the unit. Interesting what kind of network stack tuning did you do? What packet classifer? etc etc etc. Anyone like it? It certainly warrants further discussion and investigation. -- Charles Wyble (818) 280 - 7059 http://charlesnw.blogspot.com CTO Known Element Enterprises / SoCal WiFI project WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents
I've heard most of the backstory on the Trango MM death. In a way I think we should applaud Z for killing it. It would not do what we needed for the next generation product it needed to be. He could have delivered it half-baked, and maybe even broken even on it, but in the long term, it would have cost us all. He took a painful loss, dropped some programmers / engineers who could not deliver what they promised, and is now regrouping. I've heard rumor of them considering ramped up AP for the current line, but am not holding my breath. I also understand they may be working on a very high-end 5GHZ ptp link radio (like the Giga line). That could be a good thing too. 3.650 would be nice :) Appreciate your input and insight Charles. Randy Charles Wu wrote: Trango is a very opportunistic company ran by a smart and opportunistic individual, and Z tends to chase the market that makes Z the most money (can't really blame him, as every small business / entrepreneur ultimately employs a similar type of strategy)...at this juncture, their cheap licensed backhaul is probably creating more buzz and profitability for them than trying to develop a multi-point line in a market that's currently racing to the bottom... Think about it, if you were a radio manufacturer, and you could sell a $8-10k backhaul to a single customer that probably has the same amount (if not more) of margin vs selling several hundred SUs to about 30-50 different WISPs, which would you pick? That said, the good news about Trango is that they're privately held (by Z), profitable, and not really in danger of going out of business...the only thing you can blame them for is not being true to their promises in 2004/2005 about an upgrade path for their multi-point product line So yell at them for not being willing to take a longer-term view of the market, but with the rapid change in today's market, is this really even possible? Broken promises in telecom are nothing new Motorola's No-SM left behind program (that got left behind with the Canopy 400 series product) Wi-LAN's WiMAX Upgrade Guarantee (they went out of business and I doubt EION Wireless is going to honor those contracts) Remember KarlNet? Think that's bad...look elsewhere in the Telecom market...anyone ever heard of CopperCom =) -Charles --- WiNOG Wireless Roadshows Coming to a City Near You http://www.winog.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 2:04 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents Hi, You are correct... my mistake. However, the MM5 was going to be 5ghz along with an MM2 (2.4ghz) and MM9 (900mhz)... but as you mentioned, the products have been discontinued. Which really leaves me wondering what Trango is going to be selling? Their 5 year old product is getting slow, and is still very expensive. :( Travis Charles Wu wrote: Travis, The Trango 5830 / 900 / 2400 were up/down-coverted 802.11b - not 802.11a systems The only 802.11a multipoint system that Trango had was MM5, and it is my understanding that (1) it was never for 900 MHz and (2) it has been put on hold / discontinued -Charles --- WiNOG Wireless Roadshows Coming to a City Near You http://www.winog.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents What about Trango? Charles Wu wrote: So, what down converted 802.11a systems are there for 900? Mini-PCI: Ubiquiti Zcomax Vendor Solutions: Tranzeo Alvarion Vecima/WaveRider Wu-Wu Special* *We are doing some exploratory investigation =) -Charles - Original Message - From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.orgmailto:wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:19 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents Even thought this thread is a bit old, couldn't help but add my 2 cents (as there seems to be a resurgence of puff in this space) DISCLAIMER: I am also a vendor of various WiMAX 802.16d systems - so feel free to apply your necessary 'BS' filter Benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz 1. Spectral efficiency ( 4.85 gross bp/hz ) On a six sector configuration with only 25mhz of spectrum, you can effectively deliver approx 20mb per sector or 120 mb / per pop, 240 mb when all 50 mhz is supported. Support for thousands of subscribers is possible off the same BSU. This isn't all too exciting, IMO - there are plenty of systems out there that have similar (if not better) spectral
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Where is the polling you refer to? Is that in the beta firmware or something? I haven't noticed it. Randy Travis Johnson wrote: The AirOS that comes on the Nanostations also has polling the issue is having a product that is compatible and has the features that people are already used to. Having Mikrotik on the Nano's would open up a whole new world. Travis Gino Villarini wrote: Well you all have the option to flash the nanostations with oswave firmware. The oswave has polling... gino -Original Message- From: Matt Larsen - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:21 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Travis Johnson wrote: Matt, I agree with almost everything you said... except the polling part. Having a robust, efficient polling system is the best thing available for outdoor wireless. That is one of the main reasons we are now using Mikrotik is because of their Nstreme and polling system. We are finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does work. How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the AP (on the upload side). Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an upload running. Um, bandwidth limiting? As long as the AP has the upload speed coming from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity of the pipe, its not a problem. I'm doing the test right now, and I have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter. What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :) Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Microserv Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Hi Travis, I'm with you - the Nanostations are a pretty amazing product. I've been deploying Nanostations on 10mhz channels in 2.4 and 5ghz with StarOS access points and the performance/interference resistance is pretty amazing at ANY price point. I could say the same thing for the newer Tranzeo CPE units as well, but they can't match up with the Ubiquity price point just yet. It is neat to see a product with many of the Canopy advantages (rich features, small footprint, inexpensive to produce, good interference resistance) that is compatible with the 802.11a/b/g standards and thus able to take advantage of the very innovative Mikrotik and StarOS platforms. I'm curious to see if someone comes up with a good reflector for the Nanostation radios. That would enable the use of the adaptive antenna mode, and since StarOS has the ability to switch connectors on the fly - and potentially polarity if hooked up to a dual-pol antenna - you would end up with a standards based product that would have nearly every feature that the Trangos had that made them special (noise threshold at the AP, software switchable polarity, site survey, etc). No polling, but that is one of the most overrated features anyway. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I would agree... I think there is an opportunity as well. There are some new products in the market recently (Ubiquiti Nanostation) that could shake things up a little. Getting an FCC product with PoE and a Ubiquiti quality radio for $79 is pretty amazing (I will be testing some this coming week). It really makes you wonder how much money some of these companies can really have into a radio system (Trango, Canopy, etc.) when Ubiquiti can sell a brand new product for $79 MSRP. Granted there are not a lot of bells and whistles, but honestly most of the WISP's out there don't need that. If you can buy a radio for $79, you can put whatever you need behind it (Cisco, Mikrotik, etc.) and still be less than $200 for a nice CPE. I think Trango's first mistake was the mesh game they played for a year. Then when they decide to get back into the game, they promise a product that seems too good to be true... and now it turns out, it was. So, they are now 2+ years behind everyone else in the RD world, and they are losing customers left and right. The licensed market may help get
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Randy Cosby wrote: Is polling like token passing? Say something like http://frottle.sourceforge.net/ ? Where is the polling you refer to? Is that in the beta firmware or something? I haven't noticed it. Randy -- Charles Wyble (818) 280 - 7059 http://charlesnw.blogspot.com CTO Known Element Enterprises / SoCal WiFI project WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question
There are some apples / oranges differences between Tranzeo and Nanostation that Tranzeo really ought to trumpet more. Things like firmware rollbacks, built-in RAID file systems, etc. And they have had a lot more time to work out a lot of bugs and irritations. All of mine just work. Oh, and fcc-approved 5.4 :) They seem to be at or near the end of their development timeline though for the current product line. So on the surface, feature-wise, NS does trump them. I just don't trust them yet. My first experience with the NS5 in a PTP link was not the best. Eventually a beta firmware helped stop it from locking up randomly after a few days. Not something I'd use for another year or more for a critical client. Randy Charles Wu wrote: snip That said, getting into the world of Wi-Fi CPE - for anyone who is not running a proprietary protocol, it seems that the current market leader is Tranzeo, however, looking at their site, it seems that their value-line (SL2) product still goes for about $130 and doesn't even have ½ the features of the Nanostation and AirOS /snip WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
DD-WRT does run on the NS. Chuck McCown - 3 wrote: I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this. - Original Message - From: Japhy Bartlett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book.. Remember how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game? How the company that wrote software for specific hardware lost - hard? For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good code already written and being developed? Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin. solution. I.e., Windows and Apple. Look at how the PC market converged towards x86! If Mikrotik or some of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to port every stinking firmware flavor. Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful business model .. ever? And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, well this firmware does X better. Is there anything particularly different between Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS? - japhy And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon. On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS. I don't understand why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40. Hardware has to be manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent. If they are already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost. People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint. Even with an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE. That is $10 less than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure. It would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE. If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend market and finally have certified gear out there. The upgrade path would be perfect for their hardware. They would sell the AP hardware as well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and still make $40/CPE on the cheap end. And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS network. I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after manufacture and shipping. I really don't see the downside to this, especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti really expressed and interest in working with them. Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested... Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Matt Ferre wrote: Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly see why. Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No, their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never ever. On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote: Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone? My understanding (this is friend of a friend quality info) is that MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform. It is not something that is going to happen out of the box, however with a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that could be done. I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4 license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost. -- *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering *MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream * *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE *
[WISPA] Chickasha Ok
Hey all, Does anyone service Chickasha Oklahoma area? Please hit me off list. Thanks, Mike Goicoechea [EMAIL PROTECTED] WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents
The T45 is probably my favorite ptp radio today, but I'm severally limited without support for 10mhz channels. I usually run 20Mhz channels, but the safety blanket to be able to drop to 10Mhz to get around interference is priceless, when it is needed. Thats never known until after the gear is deployed. I agree, just add supprot for 10Mhz channels, and Its all good for me. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Gino Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 12:00 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents Thay just need to add a couple of features to the t45... Better ethernet configuration options 5 10 40 channels support gino -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:13 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents Which really leaves me wondering what Trango is going to be selling? Kick ASX PTP systems. Both Tri-Band Atlases, and Licensed Links. The have the potential to stay a price leader in Quality PtP. As for the PTMP To this day, I have never been able to get over the need to do scans on the fly from APs, to determine best channel to try. The Atlas still gives us that, and makes it a long term contendor against all the other options. I think Trango realizes they can't miss the PTP licensed market, (its to important) and that they need to stay focused on it. What I don't understand is why they can't just write some quick firmware mods, and turn the Atlast PTP Ext into an Atlas PTMP AP? I sure hope they don't give up on the MM5, even if it can't give us everything we want. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 2:04 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents Hi, You are correct... my mistake. However, the MM5 was going to be 5ghz along with an MM2 (2.4ghz) and MM9 (900mhz)... but as you mentioned, the products have been discontinued. Which really leaves me wondering what Trango is going to be selling? Their 5 year old product is getting slow, and is still very expensive. :( Travis Charles Wu wrote: Travis, The Trango 5830 / 900 / 2400 were up/down-coverted 802.11b - not 802.11a systems The only 802.11a multipoint system that Trango had was MM5, and it is my understanding that (1) it was never for 900 MHz and (2) it has been put on hold / discontinued -Charles --- WiNOG Wireless Roadshows Coming to a City Near You http://www.winog.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents What about Trango? Charles Wu wrote: So, what down converted 802.11a systems are there for 900? Mini-PCI: Ubiquiti Zcomax Vendor Solutions: Tranzeo Alvarion Vecima/WaveRider Wu-Wu Special* *We are doing some exploratory investigation =) -Charles - Original Message - From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.orgmailto:wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:19 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents Even thought this thread is a bit old, couldn't help but add my 2 cents (as there seems to be a resurgence of puff in this space) DISCLAIMER: I am also a vendor of various WiMAX 802.16d systems - so feel free to apply your necessary 'BS' filter Benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz 1. Spectral efficiency ( 4.85 gross bp/hz ) On a six sector configuration with only 25mhz of spectrum, you can effectively deliver approx 20mb per sector or 120 mb / per pop, 240 mb when all 50 mhz is supported. Support for thousands of subscribers is possible off the same BSU. This isn't all too exciting, IMO - there are plenty of systems out there that have similar (if not better) spectral efficiency characteristics as to what the WiMAX 802.16d standard offers...also, with the uncertainties of 3650 licensing, which is, from an interference protection perspective, not that much different that Part-15, higher order modulation schemes don't do much in the presence of noise Case in point: Why does everyone keep using Canopy 900 MHz systems when you can get an 802.11a OFDM-based down-converted system that delivers 3-4x the throughput? Well, it's a matter of what's actually going to work in the crowded 900 MHz band. 2. multiple vendor support (
Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents
Tom, on a semi-related note, have affected by the VLAN bug on these radios? The radio will not respond to any traffic originating outside if its own subnet if VLAN support is enabled. That means no monitoring by a NMS if it's not on the same subnet as the radio. Trango confirmed the bug back in February but has been unable / unwilling to fix it so far... Patrick Shoemaker President, Vector Data Systems LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] office: (301) 358-1690 x36 mobile: (410) 991-5791 http://www.vectordatasystems.com Tom DeReggi wrote: The T45 is probably my favorite ptp radio today, but I'm severally limited without support for 10mhz channels. I usually run 20Mhz channels, but the safety blanket to be able to drop to 10Mhz to get around interference is priceless, when it is needed. Thats never known until after the gear is deployed. I agree, just add supprot for 10Mhz channels, and Its all good for me. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Gino Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 12:00 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents Thay just need to add a couple of features to the t45... Better ethernet configuration options 5 10 40 channels support gino -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:13 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents Which really leaves me wondering what Trango is going to be selling? Kick ASX PTP systems. Both Tri-Band Atlases, and Licensed Links. The have the potential to stay a price leader in Quality PtP. As for the PTMP To this day, I have never been able to get over the need to do scans on the fly from APs, to determine best channel to try. The Atlas still gives us that, and makes it a long term contendor against all the other options. I think Trango realizes they can't miss the PTP licensed market, (its to important) and that they need to stay focused on it. What I don't understand is why they can't just write some quick firmware mods, and turn the Atlast PTP Ext into an Atlas PTMP AP? I sure hope they don't give up on the MM5, even if it can't give us everything we want. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 2:04 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents Hi, You are correct... my mistake. However, the MM5 was going to be 5ghz along with an MM2 (2.4ghz) and MM9 (900mhz)... but as you mentioned, the products have been discontinued. Which really leaves me wondering what Trango is going to be selling? Their 5 year old product is getting slow, and is still very expensive. :( Travis Charles Wu wrote: Travis, The Trango 5830 / 900 / 2400 were up/down-coverted 802.11b - not 802.11a systems The only 802.11a multipoint system that Trango had was MM5, and it is my understanding that (1) it was never for 900 MHz and (2) it has been put on hold / discontinued -Charles --- WiNOG Wireless Roadshows Coming to a City Near You http://www.winog.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents What about Trango? Charles Wu wrote: So, what down converted 802.11a systems are there for 900? Mini-PCI: Ubiquiti Zcomax Vendor Solutions: Tranzeo Alvarion Vecima/WaveRider Wu-Wu Special* *We are doing some exploratory investigation =) -Charles - Original Message - From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.orgmailto:wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:19 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents Even thought this thread is a bit old, couldn't help but add my 2 cents (as there seems to be a resurgence of puff in this space) DISCLAIMER: I am also a vendor of various WiMAX 802.16d systems - so feel free to apply your necessary 'BS' filter Benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz 1. Spectral efficiency ( 4.85 gross bp/hz ) On a six sector configuration with only 25mhz of spectrum, you can effectively deliver approx 20mb per sector or 120 mb / per pop, 240 mb when all 50 mhz is supported. Support for thousands of subscribers is possible off the same BSU. This isn't all too exciting, IMO - there are plenty of systems out there that have similar (if not better) spectral efficiency characteristics as to what the
Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents
Should have read have you been affected... Patrick Shoemaker President, Vector Data Systems LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] office: (301) 358-1690 x36 mobile: (410) 991-5791 http://www.vectordatasystems.com Patrick Shoemaker wrote: Tom, on a semi-related note, have affected by the VLAN bug on these radios? The radio will not respond to any traffic originating outside if its own subnet if VLAN support is enabled. That means no monitoring by a NMS if it's not on the same subnet as the radio. Trango confirmed the bug back in February but has been unable / unwilling to fix it so far... Patrick Shoemaker President, Vector Data Systems LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] office: (301) 358-1690 x36 mobile: (410) 991-5791 http://www.vectordatasystems.com Tom DeReggi wrote: The T45 is probably my favorite ptp radio today, but I'm severally limited without support for 10mhz channels. I usually run 20Mhz channels, but the safety blanket to be able to drop to 10Mhz to get around interference is priceless, when it is needed. Thats never known until after the gear is deployed. I agree, just add supprot for 10Mhz channels, and Its all good for me. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Gino Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 12:00 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents Thay just need to add a couple of features to the t45... Better ethernet configuration options 5 10 40 channels support gino -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:13 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents Which really leaves me wondering what Trango is going to be selling? Kick ASX PTP systems. Both Tri-Band Atlases, and Licensed Links. The have the potential to stay a price leader in Quality PtP. As for the PTMP To this day, I have never been able to get over the need to do scans on the fly from APs, to determine best channel to try. The Atlas still gives us that, and makes it a long term contendor against all the other options. I think Trango realizes they can't miss the PTP licensed market, (its to important) and that they need to stay focused on it. What I don't understand is why they can't just write some quick firmware mods, and turn the Atlast PTP Ext into an Atlas PTMP AP? I sure hope they don't give up on the MM5, even if it can't give us everything we want. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 2:04 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents Hi, You are correct... my mistake. However, the MM5 was going to be 5ghz along with an MM2 (2.4ghz) and MM9 (900mhz)... but as you mentioned, the products have been discontinued. Which really leaves me wondering what Trango is going to be selling? Their 5 year old product is getting slow, and is still very expensive. :( Travis Charles Wu wrote: Travis, The Trango 5830 / 900 / 2400 were up/down-coverted 802.11b - not 802.11a systems The only 802.11a multipoint system that Trango had was MM5, and it is my understanding that (1) it was never for 900 MHz and (2) it has been put on hold / discontinued -Charles --- WiNOG Wireless Roadshows Coming to a City Near You http://www.winog.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents What about Trango? Charles Wu wrote: So, what down converted 802.11a systems are there for 900? Mini-PCI: Ubiquiti Zcomax Vendor Solutions: Tranzeo Alvarion Vecima/WaveRider Wu-Wu Special* *We are doing some exploratory investigation =) -Charles - Original Message - From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.orgmailto:wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:19 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents Even thought this thread is a bit old, couldn't help but add my 2 cents (as there seems to be a resurgence of puff in this space) DISCLAIMER: I am also a vendor of various WiMAX 802.16d systems - so feel free to apply your necessary 'BS' filter Benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz 1. Spectral efficiency ( 4.85 gross bp/hz ) On a six sector configuration with only 25mhz of spectrum, you can effectively deliver approx 20mb per sector or 120 mb / per pop, 240 mb when all 50 mhz is supported.
Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents
I fully agree. I'd rather a product line be cancelled than one released that would cause the buyers to loose face/money after we bought into the line. Of course what I would like most, is the product that the MM5 promised. But as the song goes, You can't always get what you want, but sometimes you can get what you need. To Trango's defense, it was an ambutious effort, and one nobody else could deliver on yet either. What I do respect is someone's vision to try, and Trango definately tried. Trango invested huge amounts of time and money RDing the MM5 product line, to the point that Betas were on the street. I applaud their vision and effort, even if it did not come to play. Its that vision, that has enabled Trango to put out so many good products that they have put out to date. Its that vision that is allowing a very strong base of Licensed products to develop today as well. It still amazes me every day, that I have Radios installed and running since 2000 (eight years), and they are still my radio of choice in many many cases. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Randy Cosby [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 1:29 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents I've heard most of the backstory on the Trango MM death. In a way I think we should applaud Z for killing it. It would not do what we needed for the next generation product it needed to be. He could have delivered it half-baked, and maybe even broken even on it, but in the long term, it would have cost us all. He took a painful loss, dropped some programmers / engineers who could not deliver what they promised, and is now regrouping. I've heard rumor of them considering ramped up AP for the current line, but am not holding my breath. I also understand they may be working on a very high-end 5GHZ ptp link radio (like the Giga line). That could be a good thing too. 3.650 would be nice :) Appreciate your input and insight Charles. Randy Charles Wu wrote: Trango is a very opportunistic company ran by a smart and opportunistic individual, and Z tends to chase the market that makes Z the most money (can't really blame him, as every small business / entrepreneur ultimately employs a similar type of strategy)...at this juncture, their cheap licensed backhaul is probably creating more buzz and profitability for them than trying to develop a multi-point line in a market that's currently racing to the bottom... Think about it, if you were a radio manufacturer, and you could sell a $8-10k backhaul to a single customer that probably has the same amount (if not more) of margin vs selling several hundred SUs to about 30-50 different WISPs, which would you pick? That said, the good news about Trango is that they're privately held (by Z), profitable, and not really in danger of going out of business...the only thing you can blame them for is not being true to their promises in 2004/2005 about an upgrade path for their multi-point product line So yell at them for not being willing to take a longer-term view of the market, but with the rapid change in today's market, is this really even possible? Broken promises in telecom are nothing new Motorola's No-SM left behind program (that got left behind with the Canopy 400 series product) Wi-LAN's WiMAX Upgrade Guarantee (they went out of business and I doubt EION Wireless is going to honor those contracts) Remember KarlNet? Think that's bad...look elsewhere in the Telecom market...anyone ever heard of CopperCom =) -Charles --- WiNOG Wireless Roadshows Coming to a City Near You http://www.winog.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 2:04 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents Hi, You are correct... my mistake. However, the MM5 was going to be 5ghz along with an MM2 (2.4ghz) and MM9 (900mhz)... but as you mentioned, the products have been discontinued. Which really leaves me wondering what Trango is going to be selling? Their 5 year old product is getting slow, and is still very expensive. :( Travis Charles Wu wrote: Travis, The Trango 5830 / 900 / 2400 were up/down-coverted 802.11b - not 802.11a systems The only 802.11a multipoint system that Trango had was MM5, and it is my understanding that (1) it was never for 900 MHz and (2) it has been put on hold / discontinued -Charles --- WiNOG Wireless Roadshows Coming to a City Near You http://www.winog.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject:
