RE: [WISPA] Farewell folks
LOL. Thank you and I have been dealing with that brutality for well over 3 years now. Now it will be a focus which should actually make it easier on me (and the wife and kids). I have been stretched a little to thin for the past two years. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 11:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Farewell folks Congrats Brad! Enjoy your new gig. I hope that you can survive the brutality that comes with dealing with the carriers :-). Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Brad Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 7:30 AM Subject: [WISPA] Farewell folks For those of you that would like to keep in touch, my contact information is below. A new Alvarion carrier group was formed a few months ago and I was asked to join that group. After 9 years (not counting my 3 years as a BreezeCOM manufacturers rep) of being in the Alvarion channel supporting VAR's, distributor's, and Wisp's, it was time for a change. A req was opened and several interviews have taken place so a new hire in the Northeast Channel will be on board shortly. I'm sure I will see some of you at shows etc and I wish wellness and happy deployments to all! Brad Brad Larson Director of Sales, Carrier Accounts Alvarion, Inc 965 Rakestraw Rd Montoursville, PA 17754 Phone 570-433-4608 Cell 570-419-0029 Fax 570-433-4603 Few people wake up in the morning thinking of buying technology, they buy solutions Notice: This transmission and any files attached to it may contain confidential and/or privileged information and is intended only for the named recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, reproduction, retransmission, dissemination, copying, or any use of the information or files contained is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply and delete this electronic mail. This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(84). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(190). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(43). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(84). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] news
Dang Dee that's cool! Get Ed Wyatt fishing will ya? Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of W.D.McKinney Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 2:39 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] news Not far enough north Patrick :-) Try Kenai, Alaska around July 19th. We can sit in lounge chairs overlooking the Kenai River, eat fresh Red Salmon, and relax. -Dee Alaska Wireless Systems 1(907)240-2183 Cell 1(907)349-2226 Fax 1(907)349-4308 Office www.akwireless.net - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 09:51:37 -0900 Subject: RE: [WISPA] news Btw, what's the best time of year in Odessa? I think I should go up there to escape and cave it with you for a weekend. Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 10:50 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] news Point well taken. Marlon --- slinks back into the wireless underground where he's more up to speed. (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 10:44 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] news Friend, you live in your real world, which may or may not resemble everyone else's experiences, including WISPs. But regardless, you are making and publicizing financial judgments about other companies that are simply incorrect. Whether or not a public company makes or loses money is not an opinion, it is something that 30 seconds of researchon Google (thanks to those efficiencies) can reveal. You are a person to whom others listen to; you thus have a responsibility for being as factual (about simple facts) as possible. When you are not, it calls into question the validity of other statements about facts you might make, i.e. it becomes fair to wonder if you careless with the facts. As for opinions, you are 100% entitled to have and offer any. This is not a slam, just unsolicited advice from a peer who respects you and its protective of how you may be perceived (remember, everyday brings new readers). And yes, I know full well, that I often set myself as a lightning rod on lists, but I believe my facts are seldom in question (and I always welcome factual corrections). Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 10:22 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] news LOL Naw, I live in the real world. I try too hard to keep things simple sometimes though. My wife works for an accountant and when she puts a check to us in the books as an expense my eyes glaze over. Or when the bank tells me I'm not making any money cause there wasn't enough left over for the tax man to take at the end of the year. When ALL of the bills get paid, mostly on time, and when I have food on the table and new towers coming online I think things are going just fine! grin Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 10:09 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] news ..as for Vonage, it's investors have been fleeing in droves ever since the IPO, driving down the per share price from the high of about $17 to about $4.20 so far today (on the heels of the patent suit loss to Verizon). Yes, every share sold is also a share bought, but the company's violent share deterioration tells you clearly what the market, i.e. investors, think of the company as an investment. Marlon, I think you live in Oppositeville and not Odessa! Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 9:39 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] news Too bad some many customers say that the service sucks. I have a customer that moved. Loved our wireless so much she went with another wireless provider in the new local. Clearwire.
RE: old WLAN history, was RE: [WISPA] Broadband Wireless...
WaveAccess was bought by Lucent. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Harnish Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 12:41 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: old WLAN history, was RE: [WISPA] Broadband Wireless... Patrick, I remember a lot of that transition well. Our first wireless gear in 1997 was WaveAccess. I have no idea what ever happened to them but I remember it was FHSS. We put an AP in our office attic and served up the local library and several businesses around our building. The library and several of those businesses are still customers today! Ahh and you forgot about Doug Karl's Karlnet, based on a Lucent/Orinoco/Agere platform. Sold to YDI, then Terabeam then was essentially EOL'd when Proxim bought Terabeam. It seems like all those transactions transpired in about 18 months. Talk about torture for Karlnet customers! Respectfully, Rick Harnish President OnlyInternet Broadband Wireless, Inc. 260-827-2482 Founding Member of WISPA -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 12:25 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: old WLAN history, was RE: [WISPA] Broadband Wireless... Well, for sure this industry never stands still does it Steve? As one fond of change, that one of the things I most enjoy. I knew from people there that V-com has become Vecima (much better 'new millienium' type name), but I did not know they absorbed Wave/Waverider. Did Charles (Brown) join Vecima too? Years ago when the Cirronet folks were creating their company out of their successful industrial wireless space, I sat down with of the principals. They really thought they had the secret sauce. I was very cautionary, trying to impart how challenging the market was/(is!). They had a hard and not especially gratifying few years. I forgot about Arraycom sold off iBurst. Sigh. It made me remember how much I have forgotten about lost companies in this business. Remember ioSpan? How about Beamreach? Remember they even had a successful Verizon trial fours years ago. And then how about all the companies bought, collapsed into and morphed over the years? Someday we should build a full BWIA family tree of sorts. Fun examples (I might be a little off [is that Fruedian?]) just from perhaps the 4 original wireless LAN pioneers: Glenair spun off Western MultiplexWMUX buys the original WLAN pioneer Proxim and keeps Proxim name Proxim buys Farallon and Proxim buys AgereProxim sold in bankruptcy to YDI who had recently bought TerabeamYDI/Terabeam dba Proxim And within that story is Agere: Lannet spins offLANair pieces become part of Lucent's original pioneering WLAN groupLucent spins out Agere which comes out with Orinoco which ends up at Proxim... And fewer would know the others with ties from LANair formed original WLAN pioneer BreezeCOM, which later merged with Floware to became Alvarion in 2001... How many remember that Telxon created original WLAN pioneer Aironet which was bought by Cisco. And all that is one tiny fraction of all that has taken place and does not even cover the rise of the UL BWA application itself where we were also a principal pioneer on the product side (but we were only smartly following the lead of the original WISPs, most who were using our gear that pre-dated DSSS) as the others stayed in WLAN. I wonder what the next 12 years will bring? Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Stroh Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 8:40 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Wireless Internet Access Vendors list Patrick: Thanks for the inputs. FreeWave and MDS were added from a previous reply. Lightpointe typo corrected. Wave Wireless / Waverider was sold to Vecima Networks. ZTE added. Huawei added. Almost couldn't find any references to Acton; it's actually Accton, now added. Added AWB. Cirronet still lists their Broadband Wireless gear. As far as I can tell, Qualcomm doesn't actually make gear - the only thing they manufacture is chipsets and lawsuits. Arraycomm is also out of the equipment business - only intellectual property and IntelliCell. iBurst was spun off to Kyocera. Good point on Terabeam; it was deleted and Proxim added. Thanks, Steve On Feb 15, 2007, at Feb 15 07:17 PM, Patrick Leary wrote: Steve, here are a few off my head that are not there...Freewave, MDS, Lightpointe is with an e on the end, Wave Wireless (formerly Waverider, etc.), ZTE (ZiMAX), Huwaie, Acton Wireless Broadband (AWB), is Cirronet still around?, Qualcomm (with their MediaFLO), Arraycom, Terabeam actually dba's as Proxim. P.S. - thanks for only including legal vendors Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080
RE: SPAM ? RE: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards.
I have kept pretty silent watching all the grandstanding. But Marty brings up an excellent point. The licensed operators are using the flaunting of the laws as good reason to not give you any more UL spectrum. I have seen and heard this first hand. You guys can throw all the darts you want but I'm starting to see your boat go upstream and you're in a canoe without a paddle. Use the spectrum wisely and by the law. Those wisps that don't heed the law need to be taken behind the woodshed and publicly flogged by a group of their peers until they get with the program. Manufacturers should get the same treatment. This would be a good organization to start such a program. Rich had some excellent feedback on what other org's have done and if I were you guys I would ask for his involvement, build a program, and get moving. You are late to the game. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty Dougherty Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 5:34 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: SPAM ? RE: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards. Give me a break. I just joined WISPA in the past 60 days with intentions of HELPING THE INDUSTRY. In the 60 days I have been on this list I have seen all kinds of BS- Political grandstanding, rudeness and generally unprofessional behavior. The most recent discussions about operating illegally have been just as disturbing. I want to know if WISPA intends to step up to the plate and take a position against all of this INCLUDING the open and seemingly arrogant flaunting of the rules that have been put in place by the FCC. If you had the authority to grant new unlicensed spectrum to the WISP represented on this list would you feel confident they will follow the rules? Don't you think the licensed camps are going to eat this up? MY 2 cents- we are in for the battle of our lives with regards to spectrum and we are LOOSING. In fact, if not for the muni crowd, we would have little hope of getting any of the TV/whitespace. Someone else mentioned this was similar to the CB radio story... Marty __ Marty Dougherty CEO Roadstar Internet Inc [EMAIL PROTECTED] 703-623-4542 (Cell) 703-554-6620 (office) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mac Dearman Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 10:29 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: SPAM ? RE: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards. Oh my lord Marty! I think you are trying to get Patrick back in high gear on his soap box!! :-) SHAME SHAME!! Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty Dougherty Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 12:15 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: SPAM ? RE: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards. Since we have been on the subject- do these all qualify as 'certified FCC systems? I have often wondered how it's possible to build this all yourself and stay legal... Marty __ Marty Dougherty CEO Roadstar Internet Inc [EMAIL PROTECTED] 703-623-4542 (Cell) 703-554-6620 (office) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 12:49 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards. Our driver sets the output power using an electronics volume control that is in the Atheros power out section. All drivers set the power using that control. The precise setting is in tables provided by Atheros for the various air rates and as you note it goes down as the rate goes up. This is to keep the amplifier from being over driven by the extra carriers that happen as a result of higher rates. The high power cards that we have tested all have a power amplifier after the Atheros power measurement sections, so the power setting that the driver applies is further added to by the extra amplifier. We have no knowledge about the specs of that extra amplifer except that it supplies from 6 to 8 dB more power. Lonnie On 2/7/07, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can someone tell me how STAROS works in regards to setting power levels to cards that adapative modulate. Specifically related to Cards with on board AMPs. To be more clear A SR2 may be speced at 26db at 1-24 mbps, but 24db at 36mbps, and 22db at 48-56mb. My unconfirmed understanding is, that the SR2 adds about 8db via an onboard external amp beyond what the card is actually set to. So if the card is set to 16db, it will have an output power of 24db in theory. However, its not that simple because the output power will change based on modulation. Does STAROS drivers set the power as the constant power regardless of what modulation? Or does it set the TOP power? Does the power on the card only change if modulation drops and
RE: [WISPA] churn, double play and why WLP is key - I finally understand it
Rich, Thanks for clearing the air on this one. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich Comroe Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 12:54 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] churn,double play and why WLP is key - I finally understand it Patrick, I agree with your engineer's description. But I'd argue the use of the word prioritization is incorrectly applied to Canopy. Canopy doesn't prioritize VoIP. Priority schemes infer media access preference. Canopy's separate pre-allocated partitions have nothing to do with prioritization as VoIP and general traffic do not compete for a common partition (they each have their own). VL uses prioritization (and uses the term correctly), as VoIP is given priority access (most likely by permitting access with a shorter time gap following other transmissions than general data ... thus VoIP grabs the media first). If VL claims to be the first to implement a VoIP priority it only depends whether anyone else has implemented a true priority scheme already. Canopy's is not a priority scheme in any sense of the term. Prioritization has the clear advantage (no pun intended). Canopy essentially divides the rf into subchannels which loses the ability to dynamically use the channel for in-vs-out, VoIP-vs-general, etc. As the 3rd party testing described, the VoIP call volume cited could only be achieved in a VoIP-only configuration. A true prioritization mechanism (such as embodied in VL) is far superior to pre-allocated partitions in so, so many ways. Rich - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary To: WISPA General List Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 6:57 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] churn,double play and why WLP is key - I finally understand it Gino, After you informed me of the way prioritization occurs in your solution, I asked one of our sharp engineers to articulate the differences to me. Here was his reply back and I'd be interested in your feedback: The [prioritization mechanism in the] __ system is different than VL in the way it is deployed and the way it will deploy a priority network. With VL the bandwidth for the sector is totally dynamic, any direction demand can utilize the entire capacity of the base station. __ pre-defines the amount up and down to the sector. Their implementation of the prioritization is stated for DSCP only where we can do it also for ToS. I am not sure if that is unique but keep it in the back of your head. Our WLP is also dynamic; where he stated that you specify the amount of bandwidth for the priority channel, our can/will fluctuate every microsecond during the communication. This will also happen independently in each direction. Because there is a potential for over subscription of prioritized traffic, VL also has an option to set aside some bandwidth for best effort traffic incase the provider creates too much prioritized traffic. This prevents the FTP from a customer from breaking during the high priority traffic times. Make sense? Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gino A. Villarini Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 4:24 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] churn,double play and why WLP is key - I finally understand it Back home...ahhh to bad when it ends... Frankly , I don't know ... maybe has to due with the TDD system, next firmware release should improve overall pps capacity Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 2:03 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] churn,double play and why WLP is key - I finally understand it It does sound like a similar smart mechanism Gino -- I stand corrected. If this is who I assume it is though, then why do they report such low VoIP performance per SM and per AP? ...but don't answer any of this until after you leave Vail. Better that you should just enjoy your vacation. Sounds great. Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gino A. Villarini Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 9:37 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] churn,double play and why WLP is key - I finally understand it Well, I haven't replied to this earlier cause Im on vacation (skiing @ Vail ) but now, let me add some info... I don't want to get involved in a gear fight, but a brand x gear has a Per Sector prioritization of traffic. It works like this: You set the cpe to identify the traffic to be prioritized using
RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
Jon, Sigh...Sync in wimax is the preferred method for small channel deployments to ensure QOS and protecting a scheduled mac that has not been optimized for interference rejection. I would also conclude that mobility and denser cell sites for voip and indoor installs are quite different than most UL deployments. Sync has very little to do with using an old modulation technique that needs sync to ensure scale of any size. I would argue that megabits per Hz, voip, and video are the things to watch for 2007 and beyond. For further information on sync and wimax in the UL bands keep your eye on 802.16h. I would add that if you can't connect a customer because of LOS issues all the sync you can muster doesn't make a difference. Connecting those customers and saving money on the number of cell sites, leases, and maintenance of those sites DOES make a MAJOR difference as well as WHAT you can sell to your customers in the form of additional services other than just data! A well respected ISP just did a bakeoff in a metro area and they found out very quickly that VL connected more subscriber sites at much higher data rates. I had an engineer on the ground doing 6 meg's up and down where Mot had zero connectivity at 6 of the 11 sites that were the problem areas. As far as your statement of having happy customers, Marty from Roadstar already answered that one and please keep in mind that probably very few Alvarion shops are subscribers here (I'm trying to change that because I think it's very important that you guys hear more from our installed base). Maybe Marty and others will chime in on their low maintenance and ease of install and the support we offer. I know Marty is saving boatloads of money on the backend because of his change of manufacturer. BTW, The 2,400 cpe 5 square mile network I spoke of in a previous post is humming right along and could have never been built at the same cost with Mot (and they lost the bid because of that). As a side note: Many of my customers tell me that they just don't get all the Alvarion dissing that has become commonplace on the lists. Look at this current thread and how it has spun into something other than what was intended.One situation from one installation set the tone for the dissing while at the same time we have a multitude of trained and certified VAR's and wisp's that have had the exact opposite opinion and are doing the exact installs and builds that we're being told can't be done (and several VAR's have done 100's of them). It's a shame we constantly have to defend our position from the constant rhetoric any time there is a congratulating post from one of our customers or someone asking for insight on the value of an Alvarion rollout...Brad Larson -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jon Langeler Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 7:05 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived I didn't make any 'claims' and as for 1,000 cpe, that's possible with wifi(although I'd hate to be one of the end-users). Some of the differences is how happy the customers are(reliability seems to play key here), whether they're business or res., how easy it is to have lower cost employees deploy the network(as opposed to me and other qualified or certified engineers that charge $10K's more/yr), and how tasked the support and management department is, etc. Things that factor into operating a real world wisp. My kind of business is one I can leave for a vacation or another venture while having confidence the thing is going to continue growing while I'm gone. As for GPS sync. Maybe the cellular guys were wrong the whole time, must be another Moto consipiracy and maybe mention that to everyone that developed 802.16d/e(WIMAX) including your own Alvarion engineers! ;) No GPS is not required, but it sure makes a lot of sense and is arguably 'proper' for a multi cell deployment. I predict this is one of those things that the novice wisp will someday either understand, moved on beyond wireless last mile, or stuck it out and trained their support dept. on how to 'put out fires' for as long as possible. Of course all of this is my opinion but I have to go now...hopfully was enough for everyone to chew on ;) Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Brad Larson wrote: Jon, LOL. Our engineers don't watch these threads and they probably never will and I wouldn't want them to. It's funny that this thread was started by a very happy Alvarion customer whom just broke the 1,000 cpe threshold with VL and he's doing the very things that aren't supposed to be possible according to some posting on this topic!! And the funny part of it is, VL displaced one of the products mentioned...performance went up, truck rolls went down, and he sleeps better at night!! This thread reminds me of a competitor slinging mud 2 years ago saying we couldn't build a 3 tower network in 5 square miles to connect 2,400
RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
Jon, LOL. Our engineers don't watch these threads and they probably never will and I wouldn't want them to. It's funny that this thread was started by a very happy Alvarion customer whom just broke the 1,000 cpe threshold with VL and he's doing the very things that aren't supposed to be possible according to some posting on this topic!! And the funny part of it is, VL displaced one of the products mentioned...performance went up, truck rolls went down, and he sleeps better at night!! This thread reminds me of a competitor slinging mud 2 years ago saying we couldn't build a 3 tower network in 5 square miles to connect 2,400 buildings...Blah blah sync sync... LOL. We not only built that network but it's a prime example of how if you KNOW WHAT YOURE DOING and are TRAINED AND CERTIFIED the product works like a charm. And if a wisp is building a scaling voip/data network canopy is not such a great solution so the hassle is in the details. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jon Langeler Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 4:06 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Marlon, if that's the type of product your looking for, I'll save you the hassle of looking (and you can come back to this post in 5-10 years to make your conclusions on my recommendation) because your best best is to go with canopy or wait until a 5GHz 802.16e solution comes out(not likely soon). If Alvarion would get an actual ENGINEER to debate about their RF technology compared to others on-list, that would be the day :-) Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Got it. Thanks. I guess my beef comes from being a wifi based wisp. I find it too difficult to reject interference with a csma based product. Anything with a wait for clear air, then transmit MAC is GREAT for collocation. But sucks when there are products around that don't follow that mechanism. That's (my personal belief) why Canopy went with it's GPS sync. It doesn't care who's already out there, when it's time to transmit it does. Trango does that to, just without sync'ing the AP's. My REAL world experience so far is that csmak (or csma/ca, or whatever collision avoidance scheme you want to use) is GREAT where there aren't many other systems within ear shot of the radios. However, when there are other devices in the area, especially those that don't have a collision avoidance mechanism, the csma radio will pay a heavy price in performance. Having used both csma and polling products, I'm not putting in any wifi type products at 5 gig. All of our next gen products will be polling as long as we can keep things that way. These days, I'm learning to sacrifice raw performance for reliability and uptime. There's a balance, sure, but getting that last 10 to 20% out of a product is less important to me than having a product that can survive some of the games that my less scrupulous competitors play. However, with EITHER technology choice, it's critical to design a network that can, and does, physically (antenna choice and ap locations) isolates your system as well as you possibly can. That seems to be the type of trick that just can't be taught. Your network designer either gets it or he doesn't. Heck, I've even done consulting gigs where I looked a guy right in the eye and gave them several choices for site locations. Only to have them pick something completely different, and sometimes unworkable. 80 to 90% of people's problems with wireless are self inflicted. Either outright or in a lack of forethought manner. Here's an idea for you Patrick. Make this product work both ways. Give it the option to be either csma or some fancy new version of token ring. Then we could optimize performance for any environment that we find ourselves in. Oh yeah, I remember the big hubbub about GPS in the BreezeACCESS II line. Why was it important for collocation then but not now? Hope you guys all had a great Christmas! Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(190).
RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
Can anyone else hear the axe grinding in the background.. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 7:04 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Hello Albert, Can you point me to a URL describing the 586-B2 color code? I've searched for a minute or two, but so far everything comes up with the oranges and greens in the 1,2,3 and 6 pin locations. Even if there is a 568-B2 color code why use that color code when the rest of the world uses basic 568-A or 568-B? I think you know as well as I do the design of the weatherproof boot was an oversight. The design team simply took the dimension of a standard RJ45 plug and used that for their ID of the weather seal design. The oversight was the corners of the RJ45 plug are obviously beyond the ID rendering the connector unable to pass through. grin No, I don't think anyone is going to bite off that a weather seal with a 1mm larger ID is going to jeopardize the effectiveness of the seal. Pathetic attempt to cover a purely obvious design oversight...lol Merry Christmas! Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Albert Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 5:46 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Hi Brad, The cable we supply with the VL product is terminated following the ANSI/EIA/TIA 568-B2 standard. We pre-terminate the cable in an effort to speed the installation process. The design of the weatherproof boot is intentional to provide an impervious seal from the elements. Having installed more of these radios than I can count in previous roles, I admit learning another color code can be daunting. But it is only eight conductors. When done properly it tests the same as any other straight cable. Happy Holidays! Eric Albert Application Engineer Alvarion, Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 2:15 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Yep, the cable is pre-terminated in some odd non-code compliant pin configuration. Oh, and pre-terminated due to the fact that the RJ45 connector doesn't fit through the weather seal! Just about a millimeter too small! When are you guys going to start using the standard 568A or 568B pin color code and enlarge that weather seal so a RJ45 connector fits through it? Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 10:31 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Thanks for the validation Marty. I suspect that some might have thought there was a catch. I almost forgot that the cable was pre-terminated. That's one of the things we don't highlight enough -- VL CPE does not require hidden extra things to buy like power supplies, cable, connectors, mounting kits, and certainly not antennas. So what's the impact overall to you business model under the AlvarionCOMNET program? Pat -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty Dougherty Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 6:48 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Well we got our 1st 100 pack of VL Su's under the Comnet program yesterday- Just wanted you all to know they are the EXACT same radios as before the big price drop- Same high quality metal radio and still INCLUDES the mounting hardware AND the pre-made cat5 outdoor cable (60ft long)- the cable is worth more then you can imagine- the RJ45 plug is already factory terminated and properly shielded so your installers don't have to do that up on the roof and you don't have to worry about a bad connector later. We have deployed a LOT of these radios already and I can tell you this is a great price. I'm looking forward to Alvarion extending this program to other products. (Patrick...) Marty ___ Marty Dougherty CEO Roadstar Internet Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(190). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code,
RE: [WISPA] Alvarion vs Moto/802.11 network value
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dylan Oliver Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 11:34 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion vs Moto/802.11 network value Dylan, Here's a good example: Providers buying voip/data wisp's. On the 5 Ghz platforms there are major differences. Brad I personally would pay more for an Alvarion or Motorola network vs 802.11. I just wondered if there was anything behind the statement that an Alvarion network would bring more than Moto. Two name-brand networks - where Motorola certainly has greater recognition. But there is no substance behind the claim, so I can drop it now. Best, -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(190). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(42). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Alvarion is Back!!!
I'm guessing Patrick went over the 25 user stand alone base station that will retail for $2,595. This will be an upgradeable version that you can start a POP with, recover some costs, then upgrade when the time comes and you get close to the 25 subscriber attachments. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 4:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion is Back!!! Sorry, I have not responded sooner guy, but I kept missing opportunities to connect to the Internet. The reason I did not post details on the List, is that the pricing and program is a deal designed and offered ONLY to WISPs, and I was not sure what part of it was suppsoed to be confidential or Open to disclose. The program is for the existing VL product line, the one you always wanted to buy, but thought you could never afford. There are volume commits involved, but they are VERY minimal. The Plan is not just about pricing, it also includes additonal support for WISPs via online content and such. When you learn about it, you will see why I was so excited. This program is something that never could have happened without someone like Patrick Leary behind it, who fully understands the needs of WISPs, and went to bat for us. What I liked about the program is that it came from the principle of how can they help us, help ourselves as a group, and ultimately reach higher volume of product deployment (For mutual benefit). Understand that this is Best of Breed product, at the top of the pyramid, so sod course set realistic expectations that their is no justification for the program to compete against $99 CB3 boxes. But it now allows a WISP to make decisions based on whether the features and design of the product is the best product for the job, rather than having to make selection based on price. It allows a WISP to step up their operations a couple notches, and puts FCC certified / carrier class gear within their reach. Disclaimer: The fact that I am impressed by the Alvarion program, and without a doubt will be participating in this program personally, does not take away the value that other manufacturer's products may also deliver. But I now can make my decissions based on the merit of the individual product lines, for the appropriate locations. Alvarion is not the appropriate product for all my needs, but I know where I do need it, and I've been waiting for this day for that opportunity. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brian Rohrbacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 8:14 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion is Back!!! Ok, then put is on the paid member list, or tell me offlist. :) The suspense is killing me. :) Brian Rick Smith wrote: yeah, tom, don't post a book, but give us details. I'm sure Patrick will be chiming in on this one. I love Alvarion gear. Just can't afford it. Mikrotik's just as good, if not better at some things, but sometimes I'd just love a DS11 backhaul everywhere...or bigger. :) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gino A. Villarini Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 4:27 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion is Back!!! No details on the website... Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 3:41 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Alvarion is Back!!! Those who were not there, (WISPA meeting), some extremely exciting news was released by Alvarion. The details of the Comnet program. Clearly the most exciting news from the show. I can't even begin to communicate the impression that it made. There could not have been a stronger message that they want WISPs as their customer. A WISP will NEVER again use the excuse that they can not afford Alvarion. Since this is a public list, I'll leave the details, for WISPs to discover when checking out the program. But I will hint by saying, it enables Alvarion for residential. Its a pretty hard sell, NOT to switch. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 5:14 PM Subject: [WISPA] OT: The AlvarionCOMNET is coming 11/13... And WISPA members at the meeting at ISPCON will get a detailed sneak preview. I look forward to seeing many of you there. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** **
RE: [WISPA] Alvarion is Back!!!
Standard base station discounts will apply from our VAR's. You'll need to add an antenna and the upgrade will retail for $3,300. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry A Weidig Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 4:45 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion is Back!!! And this will come with the same 74% of MSRP as the CPE radios correct :) What about the cost to then upgrade it to a full blown base station? Since this is the stand alone is that cost without antenna? Details, details we all want details. Thanks! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Larson Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 3:29 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion is Back!!! I'm guessing Patrick went over the 25 user stand alone base station that will retail for $2,595. This will be an upgradeable version that you can start a POP with, recover some costs, then upgrade when the time comes and you get close to the 25 subscriber attachments. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 4:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion is Back!!! Sorry, I have not responded sooner guy, but I kept missing opportunities to connect to the Internet. The reason I did not post details on the List, is that the pricing and program is a deal designed and offered ONLY to WISPs, and I was not sure what part of it was suppsoed to be confidential or Open to disclose. The program is for the existing VL product line, the one you always wanted to buy, but thought you could never afford. There are volume commits involved, but they are VERY minimal. The Plan is not just about pricing, it also includes additonal support for WISPs via online content and such. When you learn about it, you will see why I was so excited. This program is something that never could have happened without someone like Patrick Leary behind it, who fully understands the needs of WISPs, and went to bat for us. What I liked about the program is that it came from the principle of how can they help us, help ourselves as a group, and ultimately reach higher volume of product deployment (For mutual benefit). Understand that this is Best of Breed product, at the top of the pyramid, so sod course set realistic expectations that their is no justification for the program to compete against $99 CB3 boxes. But it now allows a WISP to make decisions based on whether the features and design of the product is the best product for the job, rather than having to make selection based on price. It allows a WISP to step up their operations a couple notches, and puts FCC certified / carrier class gear within their reach. Disclaimer: The fact that I am impressed by the Alvarion program, and without a doubt will be participating in this program personally, does not take away the value that other manufacturer's products may also deliver. But I now can make my decissions based on the merit of the individual product lines, for the appropriate locations. Alvarion is not the appropriate product for all my needs, but I know where I do need it, and I've been waiting for this day for that opportunity. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brian Rohrbacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 8:14 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion is Back!!! Ok, then put is on the paid member list, or tell me offlist. :) The suspense is killing me. :) Brian Rick Smith wrote: yeah, tom, don't post a book, but give us details. I'm sure Patrick will be chiming in on this one. I love Alvarion gear. Just can't afford it. Mikrotik's just as good, if not better at some things, but sometimes I'd just love a DS11 backhaul everywhere...or bigger. :) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gino A. Villarini Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 4:27 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion is Back!!! No details on the website... Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 3:41 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Alvarion is Back!!! Those who were not there, (WISPA meeting), some extremely exciting news was released by Alvarion. The details of the Comnet program. Clearly the most exciting news from the show. I can't even begin to communicate the impression that it made. There could not have been a stronger message that they want WISPs as their customer. A WISP will NEVER again use the excuse that they can not afford Alvarion. Since
RE: [WISPA] Alvarion is Back!!!
Gino and Jon, Your loyalties to Canopy are well regarded. I have seen the technical numbers from some of your peers doing direct head to head comparisons. With this new program we've now taken the extra step and we invite you to seriously take a look at our offerings! Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gino A. Villarini Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 6:20 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion is Back!!! Jon, you need to be creative, in light of such need, we bought a bunch of classic aps on ebay really cheap and the upgraded them to advantage with the trade program.. ended up paying about $1000 for the APs Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jon Langeler Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 6:55 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion is Back!!! Now we just need to get Moto to do that! Canopy Lite Advantage AP :-) Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Brad Larson wrote: I'm guessing Patrick went over the 25 user stand alone base station that will retail for $2,595. This will be an upgradeable version that you can start a POP with, recover some costs, then upgrade when the time comes and you get close to the 25 subscriber attachments. Brad -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(190). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(42). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Alvarion is Back!!! very attractive rural model
And we're also offering the VoIP feature set of version 4.0 that pushes 40,000 small packets per second thru the base station. 10X's the performance of many of the current products out there today including our older versions of 3X firmware. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 6:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion is Back!!! very attractive rural model BTW, we should note that on the AU-S, the capacity is not constrained since it supports the full 32+mbps net from the start. It is only limited in terms of attachments, supporting up to 25 connections of the 3 or 6Mbps CPEs. We've got lots of rural customers for whom this is what was requested. Those 25 six mbps or 3mbps subs will be flying though. This model, assuming you joined the AlvarionCOMNET and if you had 25 subs on each of three sectors on one cell would result in an infrastructure PLUS CPE payback of less than 9 months assuming only a $39.95/month subscriber fee. So, including a truck roll, you could get a 1 year or less payback off $39.95/month fees providing true 3mbps down/2mbps up. And you could do this with top of the line gear that will result in much improved operations and MUCH higher equity value of the network should you ever want to sell. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(190). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(42). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Real World comparison of Trango-staros-Alvarion
Thanks Tom, Your findings are in line with what many Alvarion operators also enjoy. Ease of installs and low operational costs. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 3:28 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Real World comparison of Trango-staros-Alvarion The link: 4.5 miles, 1 Big fat building in the way, barely unable to clear the roof. Noise floor high. Limits: Noise Floor to high for PtMP Trango, based on obstruction. Stats: rssi -75 -78, noise -79 or worse on Horiz, Vert worse, RSSI almost 15db below calculations due to NLOS ) Solution: Install PTP to get more gain on AP side, Add OFDM to help with obstruction. Trango 5830 was invaluable to determine what was going on. It's built-in survey command was able to determine the noise floor on all channels accurately, and home in on the fact that the link was marginal because of gear that used a 20Mhz channel half way between Trango's channels. StarOS w/ 28 dbi PAcwireless on both sides- Got -55 -60 rssi. Good link, but it was not perfect, with 1 out of 20 large ping packets with high latency. It would regularly negotiate down to 36mbps or 18 mbps on one side. StarOS w/ 28db on one side, and 23dbi on other side- Got -60 -65 rssi. Excellent / Perfect link. Stayed constant at 54 mbps, with a very rare negotiation down to 48mbps or 36mbps. We believe this is becaue one of two reasons, reflections off the building right back at us, or the wide beamwidth of lower gain antenna to help use multi-path to optimize OFDM. We often felt 19-23 dbi antenna ideal for OFDM. This put us above the noise of most of the channels, and narrowed our beam compared to PtMP to reduce noise. OFDM clearly helped to not lose rssi due to the building obstruction, and gain was not received solely from higher gain of PTP antennas. The problem with STAROS-V3... We ran survey, and picked up ZERO interference or devices, but yet we know that there is lots of interfering devices out there. The Quality reading was pointless at either 100% or 13% with very little correlation to what the link actual performance was. Hard setting modulation, to 24mbps, left the link unusable, even when Quality of 100 was shown. When we put modulation on auto, every thing worked well. SNR was only available on client side, and not accurate, reading only a -95 (which may have been average, but not peak noise, based on Trango scans). Basically, with the STAROS box, we were left totally in the dark, on what the noise environment was. We really missed the detail of the Trango tools, and not sure what we would have done, if we had not had a Trango on site simultaneously gathering test results. We learned via the Trango, that we could have survived the noise with a 10 Mhz channel, that the StarOS allowed, but we would not have known where that was without the Trango test results. We relied on End to End large pings to determine link state during tests, and were glad to see the addition of Iperf embedded in StarOS for more strenuous testing afterwords. The end result... We left the StarOS installed for a perfect link, and defined many possible options should interference need to be battled in the future. We saved a bunch on hardware, costing us under $1000 in equipment for the link, and delivered the highest quality link, as any gear could offer. But this brings me to my point of this post. What was the true cost of this job? I spent a day installing Trango PTMP. I spent a day isntalling StarOS, both with two engineers. I lost a months revenue, delaying my trips between upgrades and tests. At a price, All these headaches could have been avoided. Most likely Trango Atlas PTP would have solved the problem and given us the benefits of Trango testing tools, and OFDM, and price under $3000. But there was some risk in trying that solution. In the past we've had difficulty in high noise environments, and/or to high of RSSI. We did not have an Atlas on hand to test. We took the time to do a test with Alvarion B40 that we had on hand. The Alvarion picked up the noise in its survey. The Alvarion gave us accurate SNR readings that we could use to best plan the link configuration. And the link quality was perfect as well using the 28dbi and 23 dbi antennas. So had I used the Alvarion VL to begin with, I would have saved our company two days in labor, and would have had all the tools that I needed to install the link easilly the first time and to adapt in the future. Alvarion clearly would have been the winning choice. It gave me confidence that in future jobs IF I had to design a link in advance blind, I could order an Alvarion, and it likely would best be qualified to complete the job successfuly. I ended up keeping the StarOS in place. The reason was two fold. 1) I already spent the time, so why not save the money on equipment. And secondly, at the AP side, I
RE: [WISPA] Real World comparison of Trango-staros-Alvarion
Butch, I don't believe Tom spent 2 days installing the Alvarion linkBrad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 6:28 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Real World comparison of Trango-staros-Alvarion On Wed, 27 Sep 2006, Patrick Leary wrote: WHAT I REALLY took from your detailed post Tom and the posts of many others these past few days is that, quite simply, Alvarion is doing an inadequate job of showing our value to WISPs. While we often might yield the best total result (very time-saving ergo cost justifying installation and solid performance with top set'n'forget reliability), we are often the last thing tried by many WISPs. I think this is because there are a great many WISPs out there who use the following equation: COST = VALUE Instead of taking into account that cost is only a portion of the value proposition. I think that Alvarion's gear is (in many cases) the best solution for many things. I can't say that it is ALWAYS the best choice. I think that if you want to change the impression that WISPs have of Alvarion, you need to continue where you started a LONG time ago (before you left this market place) and help them understand that cost and value are NOT equivalent. I think, also, that you (as a manufacturer) need to understand that, while it is true that you offer a HUGE number of features, many people simply don't need all the stuff you offer. In those cases, the cost of your equipment is much too high for the value that they provide. I think that Tom's original post pointed this out very well. I don't know what the cost of the Alvarion gear Tom mentioned goes for, but even if we assume that the link was a $4000 cost. He spent 2 days installing and tweaking this link. What he ended up with is a perfect link with less than $1k in hard equipment cost. This includes the AP that he needs for that location. You have $3k to make up in value in that case. I know that SOME of that (maybe half) would be made up by saving him 1 day's time. Either way, the raw cost of the Alvarion solution would be still about $1k higher. Having said it this way, would Alvarion be able to offer $1k in value above what he already has in place now? Especially considering that he has what he already needs, I doubt that you can. Please don't take this the wrong way, because it is not intended as a bash. I am no longer a WISP, but I DO offer advice to WISPs on equipment selections and have (on several occasions) recommended Alvarion as a potential solution. I will continue to do this when I see it as an appropriate place in the network. -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting 573-276-2879 http://www.butchevans.com/ Mikrotik Certified Consultant (http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(192). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(43). -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs
Gino, I have to admit Alvarion has some work to do for the smaller wisp's out there. Patrick will have his hands full on this one. But for wisps buying 100 packs on a bi or monthly plan the pricing below just doesn't seem like such a deal breaker anymore when you add up the feature sets. For a few more months on an ROI model you can buy Alvarion. The whole point of this thread has been the fact that many (including Scriv) have found out Trango still wins, because Trango is less expensive or Canopy for that matter. may not exactly be the case. The ongoing costs of truck rolls, tech support issues, and shorter coverage modeling can kill an ROI model faster than the cost of cpe. Add in voip coverage modeling and the dynamics change once again. I have seen several advanced studies of building data/voip wireless networks where BreezeAccess VL used half the tower/base station sites (therefore less leases and operational expenses), gave twice the throughput per cell site, and can handle more than 10X's the amount of voip traffic. Throw in the addition of maintaining twice the amount of gear and once again we come out ahead. This was really driven home on a few backhauling for mesh projects with drive testing of different technologies and the findings REALLY blew me away. No kidding folks the differences are like night and day and you'll be hearing about some of these networks this year. I first saw the differences several years ago where a project out for bid was installing 2,500 cpe's in a seven square mile area with trees and rolling hills. With a $125 premium on cpe the total network costs with operational expenses was less expensive than a Canopy solution and we gave 100% coverage. Alvarion CPE installation was eave mount on 1 square mile centers vs high rooftop with more towers needed (again saving the service provider money). Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 6:44 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Trango Atlas CPE with dish $250? Canopy with dish $275 Canopy Advantage Cluster: 6 Ap's @ $1500 each = $9k (you can start your pop with a fcc certified omni unit for $2.7k and evolve to a full sector later) CMM Micro for Power and Sync = $1.5k *optional BAM - Prizm = $2k *optional The CMM Micro is optional component for GPS Sync, you can achieve sync among the cluster with 10 ft of cat 5 and 6 rj11 connectors BAM - Prizm is a NMS for Management but is NOT a required component, you can manage all your settings from the web interface on each unit including bandwidth and such. I would only recommend the Prizm NMS for big WISP's (200+ units ) About the Third Party: There are a couple on 3rd party improvements for canopy, almost all were created on a cost savings stand point, Example: Motorola reflector dish for 10 mile + links $100 Beehive Wireless reflector dish for 10 mile links $49.95 (fcc certified) Motorola CMM GPS Sync System $1.5k PacketFLux GPS Sync $300 Any other questions ? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 4:53 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs So what is the onesy-twosy price of a Trango Atlas with an extended range antenna? What is the price for a Canopy Advantage CPE with extended range? I have plenty of data I've found, but there seems to be some wide discrepancy here among you folks. How about total cost for a Canopy cluster with the BAM, GPS synch, and other little extra things you need for it to be complete? Also, I've heard a number of you talk about availability of third party improvements like it is a benefit of the Canopy system. Seriously, isn't that more a reflection of the glaring gaps in Canopy that have led smart WISP entrepreneurs to capitalize? Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 1:13 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs Trango is no where near $400 for Atlas Foxes. Trango's Atlas Fox's distance without dish is just about the same as the standard Canopy CPE (same DBI antenna). Remember that Trango lists retail on their site to protest the WISP. Low volume WISP special pricing is granted to any WISP. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Anthony Will [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 11:17 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs Your numbers are a bit off on the canopy and when i looked on the trango site it looks more in the range of $400 per unit at 30 pack pricing
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs
From my understanding the business is up for grabs. Moto got a foot hold on current cell sites and deployments. It remains to be seen what happens to new cell/city rollouts. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 2:00 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs I'm sure most know that was a 'play' and basically secured Moto's position to sell WIMAX gear to the 2nd largest 2.5GHz spectrum holder. It would have been interesting if Alvarion had been in their place...not sure if you guys have that kind of change sitting around. Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Patrick Leary wrote: Speaking of Clearwire, folks here are aware that Motorola now owns NextNet, the hardware supplier to Clearwire (that once was part of Clearwire, at least in ownership terms), right? The purchase was IN ADDITION to the $300M investment Motorola made into Clearwire http://telephonyonline.com/wireless/finance/motorola_clearwire_nextnet_0 70606/ To give you an idea of how much that Moto investment is relative to your Canopy businessthat is more than Canopy makes for Motorola worldwide over 2 years. Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 7:57 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs Ahhh... there's always a catch... so now Motorola has your customer's address and can use that for their own marketing, etc. without you ever knowing. They could possibly even sell the list to someone (ClearWire) down the road and you would never know. Travis Microserv Anthony Will wrote: -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(191). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(43). -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links
Jon, When it's WiMAX they'll be using OFDM and their current older modulation techniques will be out the window...reliable pipes are being sold every day on BreezeAccess VL with and without voip. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 10:17 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links Hey Brad, VOIP may be the only thing canopy is lagging in. I'm curious if they'll improve that in the version 8 software release or at least when they move toward WIMAX compatibility. In the mean time I'm more concerned with providing reliable pipes... Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Brad Larson wrote: Jon, Canopy is not fast enough for many now and voip performance is lacking. Depending on the circumstance you may be right for many but the times are changing very quickly. There are more and more projects hitting the streets where you don't even make the cut if you can't pass the higher data traffic or support more than 25 voip calls per sector. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 4:10 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links Since canopy is the most robust(3db C/I, ARQ, etc.) PTMP product in it's class(and happens to be #1 deployed in US), anyone not using canopy will likely find themselves conforming to the canopy operators' spectrum usage. As for coordination among the canopy operators, that's an easy problem to solve... -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(192). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(42). -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs
Brad Belton, Respectfully, there are 100's of wisp's proving you wrong. OFDM in UL has its place and making blanket statements to the contrary makes little sense. There is great debate in the industry of what value Dual Polarity via software offers an OFDM UL system. There is also considerable data on the fact that dual frequency solutions are not optimal. You keep harping on these same two issues yet we have a substantial installed base that grows by the day. There will never be a perfect solution for everyone and I understand that VL may not be a fit for your current situation. BreezeAccess VL is a viable solution that is being heavily deployed and we continue to replace dual polarity via software and dual band 5.3/5.8 solutions with great results (and they speak for themselves). I think this thread was started by one such replacement, an upgrade from Trango that got the provider faster data rates, better support, etc. etc. They'll be many more testimonials in the coming 12 months. Scriv said it best, It's like the difference between night and day. We have zero downtime on our backhaul now. We were getting countless reports of downtime from our network monitoring system before. Now it just works. I don't think I can overstate the impact Alvarion VL has had on my network. Oh and lets not forget the fact that Scriv is probably sleeping better at night without the outages he used to have. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 11:30 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Price is always a factor, but we would gladly pay a premium for VL with the sorely needed HARDWARE improvements: (1) Dual Polarity via software (2) Dual Band 5.3GHz and 5.8GHz These are time tested proven valuable HARDWARE features that VL is lacking. With these features added to VL there would not be a comparable product on the market other than home-brew's like StarOS MikroTik. Without these HARDWARE improvements the VL product is too susceptible to noise and therefore not a viable solution for committed rate business offerings. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Larson Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 9:31 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Gino, I have to admit Alvarion has some work to do for the smaller wisp's out there. Patrick will have his hands full on this one. But for wisps buying 100 packs on a bi or monthly plan the pricing below just doesn't seem like such a deal breaker anymore when you add up the feature sets. For a few more months on an ROI model you can buy Alvarion. The whole point of this thread has been the fact that many (including Scriv) have found out Trango still wins, because Trango is less expensive or Canopy for that matter. may not exactly be the case. The ongoing costs of truck rolls, tech support issues, and shorter coverage modeling can kill an ROI model faster than the cost of cpe. Add in voip coverage modeling and the dynamics change once again. I have seen several advanced studies of building data/voip wireless networks where BreezeAccess VL used half the tower/base station sites (therefore less leases and operational expenses), gave twice the throughput per cell site, and can handle more than 10X's the amount of voip traffic. Throw in the addition of maintaining twice the amount of gear and once again we come out ahead. This was really driven home on a few backhauling for mesh projects with drive testing of different technologies and the findings REALLY blew me away. No kidding folks the differences are like night and day and you'll be hearing about some of these networks this year. I first saw the differences several years ago where a project out for bid was installing 2,500 cpe's in a seven square mile area with trees and rolling hills. With a $125 premium on cpe the total network costs with operational expenses was less expensive than a Canopy solution and we gave 100% coverage. Alvarion CPE installation was eave mount on 1 square mile centers vs high rooftop with more towers needed (again saving the service provider money). Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 6:44 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Trango Atlas CPE with dish $250? Canopy with dish $275 Canopy Advantage Cluster: 6 Ap's @ $1500 each = $9k (you can start your pop with a fcc certified omni unit for $2.7k and evolve to a full sector later) CMM Micro for Power and Sync = $1.5k *optional BAM - Prizm = $2k *optional The CMM Micro is optional component for GPS Sync, you can achieve sync among the cluster with 10 ft of cat 5 and 6 rj11 connectors BAM - Prizm is a NMS for Management but is NOT a required component, you can manage all your settings from the web interface on each unit including bandwidth
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs
I'm not missing the point at all. There is a debate and the findings aren't there yet whether OFDM and antenna polarity have a true benefit in outdoor UL PTMP systems and a 5.3/5.8 offering takes away from the current products spec's which is not a trade off were willing to do at this time. OK? However, Adding RSSI readings is on the other hand a key benefit that could be considered. Nothing is wrong with your questions as long as you understand the answers. And BTW, You can sell committed packages with Alvarion BreezeAccess VL. Just because many of our operators oversubscribe doesn't mean you have to. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 1:34 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Hello Brad, I think you are missing the point of the thread here. The point is to offer up constructive criticism of the VL product and how end users feel it could be improved upon. Are you saying adding a RSSI reading, adding dual polarity and adding dual band ability would not further improve the VL product? I think you are sorely mistaken. Certainly the VL product is working for thousands of end users. Where in any of my posts do I claim it is not? However, clearly a product that auto-rates itself down to a slower speed in the face of noise is not a product that we can use to support committed rate clients. Sure, we can fudge it for a short time and if the VL offered software polarity software band agility fix the problem fairly quickly. With the current VL product we are forced to truck roll to every client site and rotate polarity or in the event of an internal SU have to replace it with a horizontal solution. That simply isn't an option for us, but maybe other operations find the truck rolls enjoyable...grin The operators given to me by Alvarion as references using VL clearly state on their websites they are offering up to bandwidth packages. Not committed rate packages as we do. This is not to disparage them in any way...many of the references are many times larger than us and I applaud their success, however our target market is different than theirs. I want to use the VL product as it can offer the additional capacity we need, but without a few basic hardware features I don't see it as a fit for us. Again, that's what discussion is for...I'm here to discuss improvements I'd like to see in the VL product. What is wrong with that? Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Larson Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 10:50 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Brad Belton, Respectfully, there are 100's of wisp's proving you wrong. OFDM in UL has its place and making blanket statements to the contrary makes little sense. There is great debate in the industry of what value Dual Polarity via software offers an OFDM UL system. There is also considerable data on the fact that dual frequency solutions are not optimal. You keep harping on these same two issues yet we have a substantial installed base that grows by the day. There will never be a perfect solution for everyone and I understand that VL may not be a fit for your current situation. BreezeAccess VL is a viable solution that is being heavily deployed and we continue to replace dual polarity via software and dual band 5.3/5.8 solutions with great results (and they speak for themselves). I think this thread was started by one such replacement, an upgrade from Trango that got the provider faster data rates, better support, etc. etc. They'll be many more testimonials in the coming 12 months. Scriv said it best, It's like the difference between night and day. We have zero downtime on our backhaul now. We were getting countless reports of downtime from our network monitoring system before. Now it just works. I don't think I can overstate the impact Alvarion VL has had on my network. Oh and lets not forget the fact that Scriv is probably sleeping better at night without the outages he used to have. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 11:30 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Price is always a factor, but we would gladly pay a premium for VL with the sorely needed HARDWARE improvements: (1) Dual Polarity via software (2) Dual Band 5.3GHz and 5.8GHz These are time tested proven valuable HARDWARE features that VL is lacking. With these features added to VL there would not be a comparable product on the market other than home-brew's like StarOS MikroTik. Without these HARDWARE improvements the VL product is too susceptible to noise and therefore not a viable solution for committed rate business offerings. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Larson Sent: Monday, September
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs
Comments inline: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 4:49 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Hello Brad, Forgive me as I just now realized you are with Alvarion and not an end user. Refresh my memory; did we speak on the phone a few weeks ago regarding our initial VL deployment? If so, I want to publicly thank you for your time and expertise. Your input is/was valuable and I appreciate it. :No it wasn't me. Regarding the findings I think dual band and dual polarity have been proven beneficial for many years and long before wISPs even existed. :No not at all. Not for Unlicensed OFDM PTMP gear-send me the study or authority who has done the research. Dual polarity agility can help in issues unrelated to noise. Thermal ducting is one scenario where simply flipping polarity can in some cases improve a link suffering. Why suffer when you could flip a switch and get your client back up and running? :answered above. Dual band goes without saying as a benefit to the product. If Alvarion engineers are concerned about loosing sensitivity simply add a separate radio for the 5.3GHz band. I think you, Tom, me and others know this is a copout by Alvarion RD engineers and one radio can be made to support both bands with insignificant drawbacks. :No, I don't have a single customer in NE USA asking for a dual radio design. Not one. There is no groundswell of customers asking so at the moment it would be a waste of resources. Over subscription hasn't been the issue with the VL we have deployed. Noise and the lack of tools in the VL toolbox due to hardware limitations has been the Achilles heel. :OK, and I wonder how full a tool box is really needed? I only experienced a 5 mile PTMP VL scenario in a tier one city that had such a noise issue. Shorter links would have worked just fine and do. Every city is different. This may very well be the case with your network and your tastes but at the same time were delivering a product that a crap load of people are happy about in it's current state. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Larson Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 12:59 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs I'm not missing the point at all. There is a debate and the findings aren't there yet whether OFDM and antenna polarity have a true benefit in outdoor UL PTMP systems and a 5.3/5.8 offering takes away from the current products spec's which is not a trade off were willing to do at this time. OK? However, Adding RSSI readings is on the other hand a key benefit that could be considered. Nothing is wrong with your questions as long as you understand the answers. And BTW, You can sell committed packages with Alvarion BreezeAccess VL. Just because many of our operators oversubscribe doesn't mean you have to. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 1:34 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Hello Brad, I think you are missing the point of the thread here. The point is to offer up constructive criticism of the VL product and how end users feel it could be improved upon. Are you saying adding a RSSI reading, adding dual polarity and adding dual band ability would not further improve the VL product? I think you are sorely mistaken. Certainly the VL product is working for thousands of end users. Where in any of my posts do I claim it is not? However, clearly a product that auto-rates itself down to a slower speed in the face of noise is not a product that we can use to support committed rate clients. Sure, we can fudge it for a short time and if the VL offered software polarity software band agility fix the problem fairly quickly. With the current VL product we are forced to truck roll to every client site and rotate polarity or in the event of an internal SU have to replace it with a horizontal solution. That simply isn't an option for us, but maybe other operations find the truck rolls enjoyable...grin The operators given to me by Alvarion as references using VL clearly state on their websites they are offering up to bandwidth packages. Not committed rate packages as we do. This is not to disparage them in any way...many of the references are many times larger than us and I applaud their success, however our target market is different than theirs. I want to use the VL product as it can offer the additional capacity we need, but without a few basic hardware features I don't see it as a fit for us. Again, that's what discussion is for...I'm here to discuss improvements I'd like to see in the VL product. What is wrong with that? Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Larson Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 10
RE: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links
Jon, Canopy is not fast enough for many now and voip performance is lacking. Depending on the circumstance you may be right for many but the times are changing very quickly. There are more and more projects hitting the streets where you don't even make the cut if you can't pass the higher data traffic or support more than 25 voip calls per sector. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 4:10 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links Since canopy is the most robust(3db C/I, ARQ, etc.) PTMP product in it's class(and happens to be #1 deployed in US), anyone not using canopy will likely find themselves conforming to the canopy operators' spectrum usage. As for coordination among the canopy operators, that's an easy problem to solve... -- Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Tom DeReggi wrote: For the golden answer. GPS only helps you design your own network, and I already take care to use best practices for my own network, when its comming from myself. Its all the other people that you have to worry about. Do you think Public safety or department of transportation is using GPS sync for all their street pole omnis? Do you think all the corporate end user PTP links being sold to them by clueless network integrators are GPS syncing? NOT! Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brian Rohrbacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 9:03 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links Would GPS'd Canopy help? If not, why? Do others in the area use Canopy? Brian Tom DeReggi wrote: Because, over the years I lost 100% of my high ARPU subs that used 5830-ext in these areas. Yes that REALLY hurt the financials of my business. The reason, is that its a high noise environment where we're attempting to deploy, and its impossible to offer zero packet loss solutions with TDD unless ARQ is available, in these situations. It makes it worse with all the WiFi gear going up, because you don;t know its there half the time, until its starts transmiting. (darn I hate contention based). Yes, of course, Beta ARQ firmware exists for the 5830-ext, but it can't be used reliably. One of the big mistakes I made is I tried to use it, and learned that it locks up the SU radios every couple of days, when under heavy load. I did my testing of it on about 10 links. I started on 4 low use links, and it appeared to be stable, with only a random lockup every couple of weeks that I thought was something else. But after I installed it on the high volume links (other 6), they started locking up like crazy. (yes used most recent supposedly fixed firmware). Auto-Reboot devices causing two minutes of downtime for a reboot, is not adequate for High ARPU large office T1s and VOIP services. I'd rather not have the business, than to get my reputation tarnished by installing links the subscriber ends up cancelling and complaining about. Evey T1 that gets cancelled means there is a MTU property owner involved that got the word (they make the referals) and a trusted advisor Computer guy (agents that give stamp of approval) that gets scared off, when they learn about the failure. Deals with partners that took months to build get thrown away over night, with a couple reboots from buggy ARQ firmware. What you can't forget is that in PtMP, you can't encrease the antenna side of the AP. Not everything can be solved with the big antenna on SU side. Without ARQ one is toast. Trango gave me so much hope when they developed ARQ for the 5800 Foxes, which works fantastically. I'd select the Fox over a 5830-ext any day because of ARQ. But thats not good enough, I need ARQ and EXT connectors. Last year, I made Trango aware that we needed ARQ on 5830-EXT and Link-10s more than anything, and a year later, we still don't have it, and its not on their priority list. That is frustrating for my business. Customers don't wait in Urban Tier1 markets. When the Link doesn't go up in a few days, or their were a couple of noise issues that scare them, they have already placed their order with someone else. What it has forced me to do, is slowly start swapping out my Trango APs, to make room (spectrum and antenna lease fees) for radios that can deliver packetlossless links. Even Wifi gear can offer packetlossless links. And its forced me to go back and re-negotiate my contracts with property owners to try and not pay per antenna, so I can get more antennas of larger size (PtP) for less money on the roofs. Its a BIG waste of time, that I wouldn't have to do, if Trango added ARQ reliable ARQ to 5830-ext. I'm still a Big Trango fan, and still am basing my business around its
RE: [WISPA] FCC wireless auction raises almost $13.9 bln
Scriv, very good news and congrats. BTW, I'm still waiting for your update on your BreezeAccess VL upgrade? Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 10:35 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC wireless auction raises almost $13.9 bln We won an AWS license in our area! :-) Scriv Dawn DiPietro wrote: FCC wireless auction raises almost $13.9 bln Last Update: 5:13 PM ET Sep 18, 2006 (Adds quote in third paragraph and details about Verizon in sixth and seventh paragraphs.) WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The Federal Communications Commission on Monday wrapped up an auction of licenses to provide new wireless services, generating almost $13.9 billion in gross proceeds and handing T-Mobile USA Inc. the capacity it needs to compete with larger rivals. T-Mobile, a unit of Deutsche Telekom AG (DT), was the top bidder, bidding almost $4.2 billion for 120 licenses. Verizon Wireless agreed to pay $2.8 billion for 13 licenses. A consortium that includes cable giants Comcast Corp. (CMCSA, CMCSK) and Time Warner Inc. (TWX), along with Sprint Nextel Corp. (S), agreed to pay almost $2.4 billion for 137 licenses. As a result of their aggressive early moves, many potential new players were squeezed out of the game before it got going. The dream of new entrants that would shake up the market died, said Roger Entner, an analyst for technology research firm Ovum. The usual suspects have won. The last time an FCC auction drew more bidding was in 2001, when regulators reauctioned some licenses they had repossessed from NextWave Telecom Inc. But in 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that the FCC had improperly reclaimed the licenses, returning control to NextWave and invalidating the auction. This time, T-Mobile had the most at stake. Although it is the fourth-largest U.S. wireless carrier, it has lacked the capacity to upgrade its network to run third-generation, or 3-G services. The new licenses will put T-Mobile in a more competitive position. Verizon Wireless, meanwhile, will likely sit on its spectrum. The No. 2 wireless carrier, a joint venture between Verizon Communications (VZ) and Vodafone Group Plc (VOD), has a next-generation network called Evolution-Data Optimized, or EV-DO. It doesn't need to use the new spectrum for that network. Verizon Wireless is seen using the spectrum for wireless technology that is further down the line, although it's unclear what that technology may be. A spokesman for Verizon Wireless wasn't immediately available for comment. Smaller carriers were able to expand their coverage from select cities to a much larger area. For example, Leap Wireless International Inc. (LEAP), a smaller, regional company, won 99 licenses, bidding $710 million for airwaves covering cities including Washington D.C., Philadelphia, Baltimore, and St. Louis. Leap's push to acquire more spectrum in new high-growth market clusters located in urban and suburban areas such as Baltimore, Washington, D.C., and Philadelphia will help it withstand the continuous competitive pressure from larger... competitors such as Sprint-Nextel and Verizon, Jessica Zufolo, an analyst at research firm Medley Advisors, wrote in a note to clients. The U.S. Treasury will receive just $13.7 billion from its latest auction because of rules that permit small companies to earn discounts of as much as 25%. http://tinyurl.com/j77nv --- --- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(191). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(43). -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Ma Bell's About Face On Muni-WiFi
IMHO. For some reason wifi has gone from being a convenience and hotspot technology to the 4th leg of broadband for the masses or the 4th leg of broadband to close the digital divide (meaning 95% or more coverage over a whole community-large and small). Mesh on the edge could be getting oversold and at some point convenience will be the telling force for deployments again. I'm waiting for a deployment to prove me wrong but the RFP's I see for data, voip, and video etc. to the edge are a stretch. I think this may be what Patrick is trying to say?? VOIP is the latest killer application and it brings most wireless networks to their knees with lots of the products that are shipping today. You'll hear more and more on this as deployments start getting legs. Wait until some of the comparisons come out that I have seen from Alvarion and several well respected customers who have done some substantial voip testing. Data is hard enough blanketing whole communities with wifi mesh and when voip and other applications are added the dynamics change quite a bit. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 1:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Ma Bell's About Face On Muni-WiFi Our side of the network works well, and while the mesh side is not so good for residential, nomadic users are using it as are some city workers. So these networks will never be claimed to be a public failure. Instead, you may see them quietly transferred for local groups to run if the big guys building them cannot make a case over time. But again, our side works well and a major part of the business case is NOT the residential side, but in selling fixed services to businesses using the middle layer technology. At the same time, our radios are also connecting the traffic systems in some case, cameras in some, etc. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 9:44 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ma Bell's About Face On Muni-WiFi Patrick Leary wrote: We are on the same page, trust me. There has yet to be a solidly working civic access muni network. By solidly, I mean indoor coverage without forced buying of a secondary CPE. We have also yet to see a successfully scaled mesh network for low cost civic access. Philly and San Fran are still on paper only. These networks are able to provide good outdoor coverage only so far. That is also why we like playing the multipoint backhaul layer. We can reliably deliver that middle layer and get high connectivity for the mesh nodes, fixed cameras, traffic lights, a city buildings, but the success of the Wi-Fi layer is beyond our control and remains the questionable piece. What happens to Alvarion when these networks fail? Does the market get flooded with your radios for pennies on the dollar? Does it make customers question the viability of wireless operators in general? We are certainly questioned routinely on why we will succeed when WinStar and others failed. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(192). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(42). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(191).
RE: [WISPA] Ed Whitacre Loves His WiMAX
Lonnie, LOL. I knew as soon as that link was posted the dissing would start. ATT is a company to watch because they own spectrum and have capital. He was clear in saying that he was using UL and not Wimax BTW. Brad -Original Message- From: Lonnie Nunweiler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 1:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ed Whitacre Loves His WiMAX I have 40 mbps to my house and it is not WiMax and I am the CEO of a much smaller company. If that is the best a huge company like that can do then they will not be a threat to anybody. Lonnie On 8/3/06, Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://gigaom.com/topics/att/ -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(191). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(43). -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Ed Whitacre Loves His WiMAX
There is no UL Wimax..maybe he is confused. Brad -Original Message- From: Dawn DiPietro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 1:30 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ed Whitacre Loves His WiMAX All, Then I would guess the following statement can be a little confusing. :-) As quoted in the article; While ATT's WiMAX service is not publicly available, one tester already has a review: Ed Whitacre, and he gives it an enthusiatic thumbs up. He told GigaOM.com after the speech that he uses the service at his home in Texas and gets 5.5 Mbps downstream over unlicensed spectrum. It's not ready for primetime, but I really like it, he said. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Brad Larson wrote: Lonnie, LOL. I knew as soon as that link was posted the dissing would start. ATT is a company to watch because they own spectrum and have capital. He was clear in saying that he was using UL and not Wimax BTW. Brad -Original Message- From: Lonnie Nunweiler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 1:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ed Whitacre Loves His WiMAX I have 40 mbps to my house and it is not WiMax and I am the CEO of a much smaller company. If that is the best a huge company like that can do then they will not be a threat to anybody. Lonnie On 8/3/06, Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://gigaom.com/topics/att/ -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ --- --- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(191). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(43). -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Ed Whitacre Loves His WiMAX
802.11b...I very much doubt that. Brad -Original Message- From: George Rogato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 1:45 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ed Whitacre Loves His WiMAX Yep more WIMAX hype. He is using 802.11b. That is why he sees 5.5 megs. And these are the people who sway public policy.. George Brad Larson wrote: There is no UL Wimax..maybe he is confused. Brad -Original Message- From: Dawn DiPietro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 1:30 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ed Whitacre Loves His WiMAX All, Then I would guess the following statement can be a little confusing. :-) As quoted in the article; While ATT's WiMAX service is not publicly available, one tester already has a review: Ed Whitacre, and he gives it an enthusiatic thumbs up. He told GigaOM.com after the speech that he uses the service at his home in Texas and gets 5.5 Mbps downstream over unlicensed spectrum. It's not ready for primetime, but I really like it, he said. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Brad Larson wrote: Lonnie, LOL. I knew as soon as that link was posted the dissing would start. ATT is a company to watch because they own spectrum and have capital. He was clear in saying that he was using UL and not Wimax BTW. Brad -Original Message- From: Lonnie Nunweiler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 1:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ed Whitacre Loves His WiMAX I have 40 mbps to my house and it is not WiMax and I am the CEO of a much smaller company. If that is the best a huge company like that can do then they will not be a threat to anybody. Lonnie On 8/3/06, Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://gigaom.com/topics/att/ -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ --- --- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(192). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(42). -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Ed Whitacre Loves His WiMAX
No. I'm doubting he's using 802.11b. I'm guessing he's getting 5.5 meg using something else. -Original Message- From: George Rogato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 2:07 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ed Whitacre Loves His WiMAX Brad Larson wrote: 802.11b...I very much doubt that. Brad Brad are you doubting that he gets 5.5 megs on 802.11b or that 802.11b isn't wimax and he IS using WIMAX? I don't think he has wimax at all. From what we see using 5 gig ofdm, 5.5 does not even show up on the charts. The only thing I've seen with 5.5 is 802.11B. Which is why I am ass u m ing he is not being accurate George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(191). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(42). -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Ed Whitacre Loves His WiMAX
Again. There is currently no Wimax cert's for UL. Brad -Original Message- From: Jeffrey Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 2:18 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ed Whitacre Loves His WiMAX Wrong, airspan is shipping product On 8/3/06 10:17 AM, Brad Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is no UL Wimax..maybe he is confused. Brad -Original Message- From: Dawn DiPietro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 1:30 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ed Whitacre Loves His WiMAX All, Then I would guess the following statement can be a little confusing. :-) As quoted in the article; While ATT's WiMAX service is not publicly available, one tester already has a review: Ed Whitacre, and he gives it an enthusiatic thumbs up. He told GigaOM.com after the speech that he uses the service at his home in Texas and gets 5.5 Mbps downstream over unlicensed spectrum. It's not ready for primetime, but I really like it, he said. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Brad Larson wrote: Lonnie, LOL. I knew as soon as that link was posted the dissing would start. ATT is a company to watch because they own spectrum and have capital. He was clear in saying that he was using UL and not Wimax BTW. Brad -Original Message- From: Lonnie Nunweiler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 1:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ed Whitacre Loves His WiMAX I have 40 mbps to my house and it is not WiMax and I am the CEO of a much smaller company. If that is the best a huge company like that can do then they will not be a threat to anybody. Lonnie On 8/3/06, Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://gigaom.com/topics/att/ -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ --- --- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(192). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(43). -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
Patrick, With version 4.0 on VL the radio will support jumbo frames and that is 1540 to allow QinQ transport. Brad -Original Message- From: Patrick Leary Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 12:06 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a real issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product line) for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios support QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play, 20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a Trango sector. Patrick -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to partners, if offering wholesale transport services. For example, IPSEC. Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as long as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the reasons that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make mods to allow larger packets? I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally limit its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their own network. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Our setup requires the following: 1500 bytes for payload 4 bytes for VLANs 4 bytes for LDP 4 bytes for EoMPLS header 18 bytes for Ethernet header That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to backhaul an MPLS network. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking for an MTU of 1532. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from beta testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a link is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska told me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001). The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version (antenna built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp terrain. We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul. It is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to install backhaul for a very moderate price. Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail. Patrick -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(192). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(43). -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
So you're using a 20 mhz channel to support one business client? Brad -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 10:37 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K We rarely use multi-point systems for customers and when we do they are either small businesses with very little voice and data needs or they are just data customers. All of our customers with any significant amount of voice are running on dedicated radios. I would say our average customer buys 12 lines of voice and delivering that over a Canopy backhaul works just fine. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: So you agree then that being able to do VoIP is key. I'd like to hear more about your experiences with VoIP. Is your solution actually doing it well or is that your idea of doing VoIP well is 8 only concurrent calls per sector so long as the quality is decent for those few calls? We have talked to many very users of other common 5GHz brands these past few week and we have been consistently told that performance is just dandy until you bump up against 8 calls. That is a less than 50 call per cell limit, which does not seem like enough to justify the investments needed on the NOC end for the softswitch. How do you define good VoIP performance Matt? Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:47 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing layer 2 transort for carriers. We have multiple CLECs and non-CLECs buying layer 2 transport from us now. All are used to buy alternative access from fiber providers and therefore fixed wireless was a naturally next step. Further, almost all indicated they would have done it sooner, but the fixed wireless companies they approached weren't willing to offer them layer 2 transport. How about VoIP? How many of you consider VoIP to be an important part of your service future as a WISP? If so, how do you plan to support since it cannot be done decently with the other popular 5GHz solutions. That's not my opinion so much as the opinion of many larger Trango and Motorola WISPs I have been talking to lately. We are doing a significant amount of VoIP now. We have VoIP customers running on top of both Trango and Canopy radios. Canopy is a significantly better solution for VoIP since we can properly prioritize voice with Canopy, while we cannot with Trango. We also wholesale VoIP to other operators and help them --if they require it-- with getting their network ready to support VoIP. If a key goal of WISPs is growing ARPU, what are WISPs plans for doing that with whatever your current technology permits? I believe VoIP is the number one way to grow ARPU and the fact that we bundle VoIP is why I believe we have one of the highest ARPUs in the industry. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(192). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(43). -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
John, Testing by Alvarion engineers has been done. Saying that a radio has an aggregate throughput of 14 meg's for voip is not really applicable. Small packets through the radio can bring most systems to their knees. Brad -Original Message- From: Jon Langeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 3:21 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Patrick, my string-and-can wifi asterisk ap does more than 10 calls! :-)Honestly, 288 G711 calls is probably more towards the high end. Whether you would like to realize it or not, canopy has come a ways over the years. If you consult with your engineers I'm sure you'll conclude that a Canopy AP/SU(14Mbps aggregate) could do a LOT more than 10 calls... Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Patrick Leary wrote: As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a real issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product line) for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios support QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play, 20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a Trango sector. Patrick -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to partners, if offering wholesale transport services. For example, IPSEC. Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as long as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the reasons that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make mods to allow larger packets? I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally limit its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their own network. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Our setup requires the following: 1500 bytes for payload 4 bytes for VLANs 4 bytes for LDP 4 bytes for EoMPLS header 18 bytes for Ethernet header That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to backhaul an MPLS network. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking for an MTU of 1532. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from beta testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a link is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska told me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001). The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version (antenna built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp terrain. We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul. It is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to install backhaul for a very moderate price. Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail. Patrick -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
I have seen testing on 4.0 BreezeAccess VL with 64 k packets where the new 4.0 outperformed version 3.1.25 by a very wide margin. Downstream throughput of 40.29 meg's per second with 59,952 frames per second passed! Data from 3.1.25 was 2.46 meg's and 3,662 frames per second. Most 5 GHz solutions I have seen tested are well below 3662 frames per second with 64k packets. Testing of 4.0 with and without internet has been very impressive. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 11:32 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K We are running VoIP over a Mikrotik/NSTREAM 5Ghz OFDM solution. Actual TCP throughput is about 25Mbps, we have had over 12 VoIP across the PTMP and a PTP BH to our NOC were the VoIP service is located while providing INTERNET across. This is working with great success and Matt Liotta is providing us the internet link via a 100Mbps fiber. Dan Metcalf Wireless Broadband Systems www.wbisp.com 781-566-2053 ext 6201 1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783 [EMAIL PROTECTED] support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 11:25 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Never tried to put that many on a tower, but then again we don't use too many towers. We've had 15 or so on a single roof before, but for the most part we never really put more than 5 radios on the same structure. We have over 100 roofs under contract, so we don't really need to load up any single roof with too many radios. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Matt, How do you fit more than 10-12 of those type of dedicated links on a single tower? Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: We rarely use multi-point systems for customers and when we do they are either small businesses with very little voice and data needs or they are just data customers. All of our customers with any significant amount of voice are running on dedicated radios. I would say our average customer buys 12 lines of voice and delivering that over a Canopy backhaul works just fine. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: So you agree then that being able to do VoIP is key. I'd like to hear more about your experiences with VoIP. Is your solution actually doing it well or is that your idea of doing VoIP well is 8 only concurrent calls per sector so long as the quality is decent for those few calls? We have talked to many very users of other common 5GHz brands these past few week and we have been consistently told that performance is just dandy until you bump up against 8 calls. That is a less than 50 call per cell limit, which does not seem like enough to justify the investments needed on the NOC end for the softswitch. How do you define good VoIP performance Matt? Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:47 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing layer 2 transort for carriers. We have multiple CLECs and non-CLECs buying layer 2 transport from us now. All are used to buy alternative access from fiber providers and therefore fixed wireless was a naturally next step. Further, almost all indicated they would have done it sooner, but the fixed wireless companies they approached weren't willing to offer them layer 2 transport. How about VoIP? How many of you consider VoIP to be an important part of your service future as a WISP? If so, how do you plan to support since it cannot be done decently with the other popular 5GHz solutions. That's not my opinion so much as the opinion of many larger Trango and Motorola WISPs I have been talking to lately. We are doing a significant amount of VoIP now. We have VoIP customers running on top of both Trango and Canopy radios. Canopy is a significantly better solution for VoIP since we can properly prioritize voice with Canopy, while we cannot with Trango. We also wholesale VoIP to other operators and help them --if they require it-- with getting their network ready to support VoIP. If a key goal of WISPs is growing ARPU, what are WISPs plans for doing that with whatever your current technology permits? I believe VoIP is the number one way to grow ARPU and the fact that we bundle VoIP is why I believe we have one of the highest ARPUs in the industry. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
What I'm saying is data rates are only one part of doing voip. I know what Canopy can do...You said I'm sure you'll conclude that a Canopy AP/SU(14Mbps aggregate) could do a LOT more than 10 calls. Data rates have very little to do with a scaling voip system with and without internet. Brad -Original Message- From: Jon Langeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 12:53 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Brad, I'm not disputing the Alvarion numbers, they look great. Your statement below is absolutely true but this could get funny if your insisting on backing up that 8-10 number regarding Canopy... Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Brad Larson wrote: John, Testing by Alvarion engineers has been done. Saying that a radio has an aggregate throughput of 14 meg's for voip is not really applicable. Small packets through the radio can bring most systems to their knees. Brad -Original Message- From: Jon Langeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 3:21 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Patrick, my string-and-can wifi asterisk ap does more than 10 calls! :-)Honestly, 288 G711 calls is probably more towards the high end. Whether you would like to realize it or not, canopy has come a ways over the years. If you consult with your engineers I'm sure you'll conclude that a Canopy AP/SU(14Mbps aggregate) could do a LOT more than 10 calls... Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Patrick Leary wrote: As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a real issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product line) for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios support QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play, 20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a Trango sector. Patrick -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to partners, if offering wholesale transport services. For example, IPSEC. Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as long as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the reasons that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make mods to allow larger packets? I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally limit its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their own network. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Our setup requires the following: 1500 bytes for payload 4 bytes for VLANs 4 bytes for LDP 4 bytes for EoMPLS header 18 bytes for Ethernet header That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to backhaul an MPLS network. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking for an MTU of 1532. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from beta testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a link is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska told me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001). The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version (antenna built-in) is bought
[WISPA] Wimax corrections-The info is out there if you look
A few corrections: The issue with 3.650 is the FCC has not decided on "ANY" spec. Wimax was never a 3.650 "issue" and this has been corrected time and time again. The FCC has stated publicly many times that Wimax was never overlooked as a platform. The wifi crowd took the "contention based" excerpt to the extreme and the drum beat continues today. Wimax "will" do more than current 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz OFDM products. Just to name a few -Bits per hertz increased, packets per second through the radio increased, Standardization, 256 OFDM vs 64 OFDM and many more differences. And if you're comparing Wimaxed OFDM solutions to DS based systems there are major differences. Please keep in mind that not all pre-Wimax OFDM systems are comparable. The "current" Wimax protocol is not interference resilient. However, there is a body in the forum working on a solution called 802.16h. Expect to see sub $300 cpe this yearsurprise .it's already here. Brad From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 2:09 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Zcomax has WIMAX? Few things of info: - 3.5Ghz is not not license free in the, 50Mhz at 3.65 is but there are issue with using this with WiMax - WiMax doesNOT do any more at 2.4Ghz or 5Ghz then theproducts on the market today in reference to RF not protocol. - The WiMax protocol has many cool features but are based on a model where there is little or no interface. - I would not expect to see any WiMax product near pricing most WISP pay today to mid 2007 end 2008. I am sure by then there will be sub $100 CPE using the other standards whichwill have most if not all the features WiMax has in the spec. Sincerely, Tony Morella Demarc Technology Group, A Wireless Solution Provider Office: 207-667-7583 Fax: 207-433-1008 http://www.demarctech.com This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This communication may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the confidential or privileged nature of the communication. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender by return electronic mail and delete all copies of this communication From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jenco Wireless Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:50 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Zcomax has WIMAX? Why is the 3.5 Wi-Max license free band not approved in the U.S. ??? -- Brad H On 6/12/06, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.zcom.com.tw/news001.htm -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org 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 footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(192). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(42). -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Tom, Dang you got this all wrong. Let's make sure we understand what Alvarion's comments said so everyone understands. Our comment breaking the band in two was to strip rural and suburban from the top 100 US markets. Top 100 markets split in two 25 Mhz chunks and licensed with the REST of the US being UL. There is plenty of broadband in those top 100 markets. The FCC's intent for the 3650 band is suburbs and rural access. There are MANY WISPs ready to go and test the 3650 allocation, but it is the manufacturers that are squashing the viabilty of the band by not having the balls to make gear to meet the specification. That's just not correct. What we don't want to do is build a product that you'll have to rip out and replace because it doesn't meet the future spec when we finally get a ruling on what the product should look and smell like then most will invest and deliver a product. Its not only important to incourage innovation and more efficient use of technology but also more innovative and efficient Policy. The attempted 3650 rules were to foster improved policy. Why would anyone fight that? The 3650 is a rural broadband play getting you access to your own spectrum to serve those customers without having to compete with baby monitors and wifi gear on every street corner. Innovation won't take place unless the FCC takes a stand on technology. IMHO what we don't need is a bunch more inefficient 20 mhz spectrum hogs at sub 10 meg speeds or worse. And to say Alvarion is fighting improved policy is a stretch. Tom, I really think you need to reread our filings or maybe stop listening to those who may have an axe to grind. Brad -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 9:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment In other words, the number of licenses is infinite. Yes, but you leave out that there is a requirement to attempt to coexist, or cooperate to attempt to co-exist. And it brings out into the open, all possible interferers, where they are located, and how to contact them. It will be an interesting science project, to see if registration apposed to operation in stealth mode (typical unlicened) helps or hinders the ability for more providers to cooexist. And quite honestly, I think its an experiment that has to be had, t oreally see what happens. The outcome could help shape the viabilty of future spectrum policy. One thing I definately did NOT agree with, was Alvarion's FCC comments suggesting breaking the band in two. The band MUST stay for one cause. The reason is that people need the ability to move and adapt within their available spectrum range channels. Narrowing channel selection down to the point where all channels are used to get 360 degrees, is foolish, and just repeats the limitations of the existing 5.8Ghz band, that has twice the spectrum range. I also beleive that basing a business model or rules on 5 Mhz channels, the maximum smallest viable size that would make sense, is also foolish, as it leaves little room (overhead) for margin. However, I was in favor of limiting channel width to 10 Mhz, but not any requirement that required channel size less than 10 mhz. This level, incourages efficient systems, without excessive limitations. I also did not care if it stayed contention based or time based, as long as it all just stayed the same method, all contiguous space for the same purpose. I also was strongly against Full licensed. As the only thing that benefits is the huge telecom company, single provider's use models, and exclude competiton and possible innovators. The whole point in 3650 was to attempt to find a balance between licensed and unlicenced. I felt Alvarion's position on this spectrum range's use was very harmful to Alvarion's reputation. Its not only important to incourage innovation and more efficient use of technology but also more innovative and efficient Policy. The attempted 3650 rules were to foster improved policy. Why would anyone fight that? The only flaw with the 3650 allocation, is the stipulation for Contention based, without a contention based hardware platform available or in engineering phase designed for the spectrum range. Its was innovative rules prior to innovative technology, and therefore left unused. There are MANY WISPs ready to go and test the 3650 allocation, but it is the manufacturers that are squashing the viabilty of the band by not having the balls to make gear to meet the specification. I also do not support the use of more than half the band for a single PtP link. The reason is that PtP links already are much more capable of using higher modulations, based on higher power more directional antennas to escape the noise and improve SNR. When the whole band is allowed for PTP, it replicates the same flaw as existing unlicened where a single PTP radio can be pointed at a cell site, or pass through a cell
RE: [WISPA] 700 mhz Public Safety State License
Most of these muni projects are basing the 700 Mhz on the public safety band that is not yet available. High speed roaming is the application not broadband. I know the Wimax Forum is at least looking at the band for e which fits the mold. Every public safety entity I have talked with in the last 2 months does not want a proprietary approach. They want standards based gear. Brad -Original Message- From: Butch Evans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:43 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 mhz Public Safety State License On Tue, 23 May 2006, Jon Langeler wrote: If your looking for equipment manufacturers, you'll be looking at companies like IPwireless, Flarion, etc... Typically $50-100K per base station/sector deployment... WaveIP and Airspan both have gear in the 700MHz band. WaveIP is around $1500 for AP and $500-700 for CPE (I don't recall). Airspan is about $8k for the AP (if I recall correctly) and a little under $500 per CPE. Both of these would be a good choice. -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting http://www.butchevans.com/ Mikrotik Certified Consultant (http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
HP has a Wireless Engineering Group acting as an integrator for Muni Projects. Alvarion has worked with them on several projects. Brad -Original Message- From: Carl A Jeptha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 7:32 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes What is really funny is that they used Hewlett Packard. Why not Cisco, Alvarion, Tranzeo. These are some of the people who are suppose to know what they are doing. BTW I am a certified HP Computer and printer tech. but still I think they know what they are doing. KICKBACK You have a Good Day now, Carl A Jeptha http://www.airnet.ca office 905 349-2084 Emergency only Pager 905 377-6900 skype cajeptha Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: roflol The city is selling signal boosters (I read that as amps) to anyone that wants them for $170? Oh man, this deployment is gonna come CRASHING down. Hard. It's really too bad these people are too ignorant, stubborn or just plain stupid to call any of us in to help. sigh Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:07 AM Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
I'm biting my tongue on this topicI have been on enough of these projects, well over 50 in the last 12 months alone, and I have to say there are a pile of people that don't know what they're getting into and many will get hurt. For instance, I have a unnamed mesh vendor quoting 14 nodes per square mile for 100% coverage in a decent sized community in MA. They'll need at least 40ish... And please keep in mind that different parts of the Country where tree lines/foliage, noise floors, and topology are different create their own separate challenges. Throw in voice as some of the wireless network experts have advised and a whole new overlay of problems surface. There is a place for mesh just like other tools in your kit but covering whole counties or even trying to cover a whole City is quite a stretch IMHO. How did we get to this point of mesh first being considered a convenience or hotspot extension to what it has become today where it is seen as the 4th solution to the last mile or a cost effective roaming solution for public safety or city workers? I have seen designs in the NE US where 40 to 69 2.4 Ghz nodes per square mile are needed when a simple implement of 900 Mhz mobility with two base stations (redundant) per square mile can do the trick and save 90% of the cost of a mesh network. Use mesh in the parks, at the pool, in the restaurant district, or anywhere else people may want public access. And I'll add that opening up my notebook on a sunny day outside is pretty much a waste of battery power. I'm afraid Tempe AZ and St Cloud are just the start of some of the bad press we're going to see related to our wireless industry. But then again, I'm a show me guy so if one of these major networks actually works, has an ROI and doesn't become a boondoggle for tax payers, and serves the public well then I'll be impressed. Brad -Original Message- From: John J. Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 10:03 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes -Original Message- From: George [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 09:02 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes John J. Thomas wrote: inline... First off, the WISPs have to have the guts to talk to the city. Many simply refuse to do so, and are probably going to get the Muni WiFi shoved down their throats. I don't want to turn this into a battle of ideals. George, you are welcome to believe anything that you want. Here are some facts; 1. I work for Clare Computer Solutions and we are a Cisco Mesh certified network Integrator. 2. Cities have approached US to install their networks 3. These cities are not San Francisco sized, they are probably populations 100,000 and smaller. 4. They are spending the money to put in infrastructure for City workers, first. Many are looking at providing Internet access second. But how many local wisps have been chosen to date? I bet Joe laura in NO got passed over without much consideration to him. Joe is on this list, let him chime in here. Second, the cities are mostly going to use 2.4 GHz for access and 5.7-5.8 GHz for backhauls. WISP's will need to use 5.25-5.25 GHz and 900 MHz. Almost every wisp today is using 2.4 to reach the customer and 5 gig for infrastructure and high end customers. Are you saying that wisps have to move off the existing spectrum and replace their equipment? I am not saying that WISPS have to move off of 2.4. I am saying that if WISPs want to provide top quality service, then they may need to move off of 2.4 as it is getting crowded in lots of areas. In a word, service. The city will only be offering WiFi access-period. They won't be going out to peoples houses and doing installs, fixing virii, doing firewalls, etc. Here is a scenario, if a potential customer who is on the fence while deciding to go to broadband was to hear that a new muni free wifi system is going to come on line or he can buy now with his local wisp, which choice is the average consumer going to make? Most are going to try the muni first. Some are going to be unsatisfied and will look for a better deal. I'll give you an example. I had 384k SDSL to my house and it was costing me $152 per month. In order to save money, I dropped the SDSL in favor of a cable modem. The cable modem can do 6 meg down and about 384k up for $43 per month and has been verified by DSLreports. Even my wife thinks the SDSL was better, I just couldn't afford it anymore. If someone in Antioch CA were even offering wireless service at $42 per month, I would be there. There is a subset of people that want quality, and are willing to pay for it. Two questions come up-can you deliver and are there enough to keep you from starving? The support scenario happens long after the fact. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
RE: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
Mark, Not to belittle your opinion but many of my customers would say just the opposite in that they're actually saving money by deploying Alvarion. The cost of owning a network isn't based on cpe costs alone. Brad -Original Message- From: Mark Koskenmaki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2006 2:06 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP It is not financially feasible for a mainstream WISP, who is attempting to serve all types of internet customers to rely on BA for anything but specialized application., It's just too expensive. North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061 personal correspondence to: mark at neofast dot net sales inquiries to: purchasing at neofast dot net Fast Internet, NO WIRES! - - Original Message - From: Brad Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 5:53 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP Mark, Come on.The whole BreezeAccess product family was made and continues to get upgrades for WISP's. There are well over 1,000 WISP's using our gear in the states alone. You won't find many of them here or on other WISP threads but it doesn't mean they don't exist. Saying we're niche and not mainstream and there is some division is a real strech. Brad - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 8:51 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP With that said I still think Alvarion is a far better platform than Canopy which is strictly my opinion and has no basis in fact. In the past I have been put-off by a perceived arrogance I have seen by some Alvarion representatives who have insisted previously that they had the only viable solution for wireless broadband and seemed as though they were claiming almost a holier than thou behavior toward anyone stating another opinion than their own. I have also seen a terribly biased negative attitude toward Alvarion by many WISPs who wanted to drive home the WISP=Cheap mentality to the point of alienating Alvarion from our entire market segment. Both Alvarion and most WISPs have lost a great ally in each other and I suspect both sides have suffered from such negativity. I am hoping to see this division closed between the typical WISP operator and Alvarion. Until Alvarion makes a product that's viable for more than niche market WISP, the 'division' is simply going to continue to exist. They have certain products that WISP's will find useful and valuable, but they don't make mainstream WISP last mile equipment. I have been expecting to see them announce something, but so far, I've not seen anything. The ball's in thier court. North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061 personal correspondence to: mark at neofast dot net sales inquiries to: purchasing at neofast dot net Fast Internet, NO WIRES! -- -- - -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
Mark, Come on.The whole BreezeAccess product family was made and continues to get upgrades for WISP's. There are well over 1,000 WISP's using our gear in the states alone. You won't find many of them here or on other WISP threads but it doesn't mean they don't exist. Saying we're niche and not mainstream and there is some division is a real strech. Brad - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 8:51 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP With that said I still think Alvarion is a far better platform than Canopy which is strictly my opinion and has no basis in fact. In the past I have been put-off by a perceived arrogance I have seen by some Alvarion representatives who have insisted previously that they had the only viable solution for wireless broadband and seemed as though they were claiming almost a holier than thou behavior toward anyone stating another opinion than their own. I have also seen a terribly biased negative attitude toward Alvarion by many WISPs who wanted to drive home the WISP=Cheap mentality to the point of alienating Alvarion from our entire market segment. Both Alvarion and most WISPs have lost a great ally in each other and I suspect both sides have suffered from such negativity. I am hoping to see this division closed between the typical WISP operator and Alvarion. Until Alvarion makes a product that's viable for more than niche market WISP, the 'division' is simply going to continue to exist. They have certain products that WISP's will find useful and valuable, but they don't make mainstream WISP last mile equipment. I have been expecting to see them announce something, but so far, I've not seen anything. The ball's in thier court. North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061 personal correspondence to: mark at neofast dot net sales inquiries to: purchasing at neofast dot net Fast Internet, NO WIRES! - -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
A scheduled mac alone does not make something carrier grade. I can list a bunch of manufacturers that have polling mac's yet you'll never find them hanging on a carriers depolyment but you'll find lots of Alvarion BreezeAccess VL. And to add version 4.0 changes the rules again. Stay tuned. Brad -Original Message- From: Jeffrey Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 2:44 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP agreed, VL is far from carrier grade On Apr 12, 2006, at 9:16 AM, Charles Wu wrote: snip Motorola designed Canopy specifically for the WISP market, not the carrier market. Alvarion designed VL specifically for the carrier market, not the WISP market. /snip Ah, the mis-perceptions of the rugged metal enclosure =) Steve, can you please explain why carriers would prefer a CSMA/CA over a scheduled (WiMAX-like) MAC? Thanks -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:wireless- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Stroh Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 11:05 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP Thanks, Steve On Apr 11, 2006, at 18:55, Dylan Oliver wrote: How is any product qualified as 'Carrier-Grade'? What is it about Alvarion VL that makes the cut vs. Canopy? Lord knows Motorola produces far more 'Carrier-Grade' equipment than Alvarion ever will - so where did they go wrong with Canopy? Also, I've heard lately several complaints that Waverider has trouble sustaining even 1 Mbps throughput ... what is your experience, John? Best, -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC-- --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - V ersion 2
- the kind the FCC, at least, seems to have in mind. I think laying out this roadmap, this realization, to them, would be not only wise, but mandatory. They need to understand the tools of the first, middle, and last mile of connectivity from our standpoint. I'm sure that the c able and telco operators have done this. We've certainly done some of it, but as fuzzy as many of us are on the concept of ubiquitous acceptance vs ubiquitous deployment, I have to wonder if our message is confused. heck, my own thinking changes regularly enough for me to feel fatigued at times. I read the comments about how we should not talk about only 50 mhz. I agree, technically. A tremendous amount can be done in 50mhz. But can it be done with the funding provided by an acceptable to the point of ubiquitous service?Cellular took... errmmm, what? 15 years? TV.. is what, on only it's 2nd generation in over 50 years? Thus, I disagree, philosophically. We need either the chicken or the egg. I'll take either one. But whatever it is, it has to be useable, at ubiquitous acceptance price points, by anyone. So, is that cheap technology that is spectrally efficient, with small slices of protected spectrum? Or is it broad spectrum, so cheap technology can take advantage of it to build acceptance and critical mass of purchasing and manufact uring scale to achieve the cheap, GOOD technology? Thus, deploying gear that costs $200 / end for backhual/ distribution in 3650 is the key to rapid acceptance. And that rapid acceptance will bring about the technological generations that bring the 3, 5, and 7 mhz wide and efficient uses.If use is restricted until that becomes available, I predict it never will, and we will have failed to gain sufficient mass, and our industry does a pratfall, become relegated to solely niche markets. I've hedged all my bets. I chose a niche market, and seek price levels which will bring ubiquitous acceptance.What can I say, it's only how I think... North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061 personal correspondence to: mark at neofast dot net sales inquiries to: purchasing at neofast dot net Fast Internet, NO WIRES! - - Original Message - From: Brad Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 11:12 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2 A typical BTA for a MMDS or ITFS build may only be 24 Mhz. Half of what you're saying isn't enough (50 Mhz). Some projects I'm working on have a whopping total of 10 mhz. I remember Patrick disagreeing with the contention based protocal in 3650 not the amount of spectrum. Like I said before, the alternative is for more efficient radio systems and not gear that takes up a 20 mhz channel to get you 6-10 meg's like most systems being deployed today in the name of cheap, interference resilient, or whatever other name you put on the product. I would aurgue the point that the FCC wants more efficient use of our unlicensed bands now and in the future. Brad -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - V ersion 2
I would strike the only 50 MHz of spectrum statement about 3650. The industry has paid billions for way less. The answer is using spectrally efficient systems with what we get for free... -Original Message- From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 12:02 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Cc: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com Subject: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2 Hi All, Barring something that you guys see that we've missed this will be sent to the commerce committee folks. For those that don't know there are a couple of bills in Congress at this time that deal with this issue. As I can't send an attachment to the isp list I'll put the text here: Monday, March 27, 2006 WISPA TV White Spaces Position Paper WISPA is the WISP industry's only industry owned and operated trade association. We're a 501c6 corporation with a 7 person, membership elected board. We believe that the FCC's Broadband Access Task Force had it right in saying that there should be more unlicensed spectrum made available. The 5.4 GHz band is a good start, it's got some severe power level limitations though. It also only works in areas where there is clear line of sight which means it will not work well to deliver service to customers directly in locations where there are trees, buildings or other obstructions between a service tower and a potential customer. For these areas we require sub- 1 GHz frequencies exactly like that which can be delivered by unused television channel space. As of this writing 5.4 GHz is not allowed for use legally in the United States. The new 3650 MHz band is also currently in a state of limbo. And even when opened up it's got huge exclusion zones and is only 50 MHz of spectrum. In short the unlicensed broadband industry needs help to be able to adequately serve the millions of potential broadband customers we have to say no to every day because we do not have spectrum that can penetrate trees and other obstructions. This is a problem which accounts for 60% or more potential customers being told no when they ask for service in areas where unlicensed broadband services are currently being delivered. The remedy to this is clear. The Senate Commerce Committee can make this obstacle go away by simply tasking the FCC with passing their own proposed rulemaking number 04-186. This will allow 100% of potential service areas to be served with high quality broadband in all corners of this country. Even the most rural areas can be served cost effectively if we have access to unlicensed use of unused television channels. Please help us help America regain our technological leadership role in the world by giving us access to these channels to allow broadband for all citizens today. At this time there are somewhere in the area of 28,000 licenses relating to spectrum use in the USA. In fact, almost all spectrum is licensed today. The basic licensing of spectrum is mostly unchanged in nearly a century now. Certainly there are some changes, the recent ITFS changes are a good example, but the basic principal has not changed. Technology has changed. Spectrum policy rules should reflect what's possible today, not what was possible 70 years ago. Today there are already high speed wireless data systems on the market that measure their environment and change channels to avoid interference. There are also systems that measure the signal needed between two points and adjust power levels accordingly. The 04-186 rulemaking we are asking for requires these technological features in any system using unused television channels to make sure that no harm is done now or in the future to licensed users of these channels. Grandma will never miss a television program from an unlicensed radio on her channel. It is not going to happen. The standards in the 04-186 rulemaking stipulate that no device will interfere with any licensed use of the television channel space under any circumstances. WISPs have every intention of making full use of any of these unused television channels as soon as possible for broadband delivery and we will make sure we do no harm. The United States of America will have to make use of sub - 1 GHz spectrum to make broadband available to all citizens in a cost effective and timely fashion. In fact, use of unused television channels is the only logical path that delivers the promise of ubiquitous low-cost broadband to all Americans. Without access to this spectrum the United States will continue to fall behind the rest of the world. It would be a shame for the country that invented Internet to allow themselves to fall behind in bringing this miracle of modern communications to every citizen. Nearly half of all available television channels are left unused even in the top markets of the United States. In the rural areas the available
RE: [WISPA] Basic Mesh Theory
Brian, Exactly my thoughts. And I'm with you in the show me category. Brad -Original Message- From: Brian Webster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 11:01 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Basic Mesh Theory Jack, Let me jump in with some more thoughts on wireless mesh: I agree with you that RF engineering and RF limitations are not being fully considered in most mesh deployments. Most mesh designs I have seen are theory based and assume the full use of the unlicensed spectrum at hand. This will never be the case and therefore limits the overall capacity. I saw an RFP from the city of Miami Beach and they had done a pre-survey of the city and found the noise floor at 2.4 GHz at -70 db in most areas. Now how is one going to deploy a mesh network with the ability to overcome that? Typical answer is build more nodes closer to each other so these PDAs and laptops get enough signal. This ignores the fact that all of these close spaced nodes then create more noise for each other because they are mounted at a height where they hear each other. In high density nodes even having 2 hops will bring these networks to their knees. There is not enough spectrum to make it work and be able to load the network up. An 802.11b based system can not deal with the hidden node problem effectively enough. Even if you do have all the internode traffic on other frequencies at the high density placement required in most cities, the spectrum limits are still a big issue to have the channels to link all the nodes. I would still like to hear of a mesh network from any manufacturer that has been deployed and has a high density of users that are the kids of today. I want to see what bit torrent, VOIP and audio streaming do to a mesh in multiple hops. While we can make the argument that those services can be limited, that is only a band-aid approach as today's society is going to expect to be able to use these services in one form or another, it may take a while but it will be necessary. The cellular companies are already creating the expectation for this kids to be able to audio stream on demand. If someone has knowledge of a loaded mesh network please let me know. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of mesh and wish it could work and want to see it work. It's just that I've been in ham radio since 1989 and was in to the packet radio technology, we as hams built networks where we dealt with all of these issues (I know it was only 1200 baud but the problems remain). There are two major problems in mesh from my viewpoint. One, if you have a carrier sense based collision avoidance system, you always have limited capacity because only one radio can talk at a time (part of the HDX problem). Two, if you do not have a carrier sense based system then you can overcome noise with a stronger signal. This causes cell site shrinkage or breathing and changes the coverage area. Most people deal with this by building transmitters closer to each other, problem is that there is limited unlicensed spectrum which is not enough room for most systems to deal with this. I really would like to see mesh work and hope to be proven wrong. There is a lot of promise in mesh implementations out there but until I have seen them under residential internet use loads I remain skeptical. Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com http://www.wirelessmapping.com -Original Message- From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 1:46 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Basic Mesh Theory Jeromie, You raise some good points... and here are some more differences between Matt's fully-meshed WIRED network example and the real-world conditions under which WIRELESS mesh networks are so often deployed today. 1) REROUTING - Only a node failure or a high peak traffic load would normally force a routing path change on a fiber/copper network. On a wireless mesh, routing path changes will also result from interference caused by other same-network nodes, interference from other networks, and interference from other wireless non-network sources. Routing path changes will also be caused by the movement of obstructions and other rf-reflective objects such as trees and vehicles. 2. CAPACITY - Fiber/copper networks typically start out with high-capacity (compared to wireless) full-duplex links. Wireless mesh networks start out with low-capacity half-duplex links. 3. CONNECTIVITY - Fiber/copper mesh network nodes have two or more paths to other nodes. Real-world wireless mesh networks may contain nodes that, in some cases (the traditional mesh definition not withstanding) only have a path to one other node. For example, obstructions may block paths to all but one (or even no) other nodes. 4. ENGINEERING - Fiber/copper mesh networks are typically properly engineered for traffic-carrying capacity, QoS, latency, etc. Real-world wireless mesh networks are
RE: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
BTW, this is what gets lots of people in trouble. Quoting 16-18 mesh nodes per square mile may be a correct number in AZ or TX. You may need 3 times that in my neck of the woods here in NE USA. Even more where interference shrinks cell sizes. Be cautious John. Brad -Original Message- From: John J. Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 2:22 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Yes, unfortunately, the Cisco mesh is only using 5.8 for backhaul right now. Since they recommend 16-18 mesh boxes per square mile, 5.25 GHz and up would be a much better choice John -Original Message- From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 08:41 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Tom, You make a very good point that 5.3 GHz should be used wherever possible while reserving 5.8 for longer-distance backhauling and supercell use. We should all be thinking in terms of using 5.3 whenever we can and reserving the higher-power 5.8 authorization for those situations where we really, really need it. jack Tom DeReggi wrote: Or realize that everyone in the world is using the precious 5.8Ghz spectrum already for long critical links, that are limited to 5.8Ghz for PtP rule higher SU antenna, or long distance. 5.3Ghz is an ideal backhaul channel for MESH, up to 7 miles (with 2 ft dish), and avoid the interference headaches. There is now a HUGE range of spectrum available at 1 watt, the 5.3G and 5.4Ghz newly allocated 255Mhzspectrum usable as if this past January. Design mesh networks to utilize these many channel options, avoid interference, and don't destroy the industry by unnecessisarilly using the precious 5.8Ghz. In a MESH design its rare to need to go distances longer than 2 miles, all within the realm of possibility with low power 5.3G and 5.4G and Omnis and relatively small panel antennas. Likewise, reserve the precious 2.4Ghz for the link to consumer, the spectrum supported by their laptops. I hope to see the industry smart enough to use the new 5.4Ghz for MESH type systems, which is one of the reasons it was allocated for. One of the most important tasks for WISPs is to conserve the 5.8Ghz spectrum and only use it when needed. It is in shortage most compared to the other ranges. I had hoped and lobbied hard that half of the 5.4Ghz range would be allowed for higher power and PtP rules, but it had not. Its still perfect for mesh and OFDM. Don;t be fooled into believing high power is the secret weapon for mesh, as it is not, LOW power is. Interference and noise is accumulative and travels for miles around corners and obstructions, unlike good RSSI and quality signal. Get better RSSI in MESH, by Reducing self interference and noise, by using a wider range of channel selections and lower power. 5.3 and 5.4 gives you 350Mhz to select channels from, of equal specification/propertied RF. Design it into your MESH design. If you can't transport it in 1watt, redesign radio install locations and density. Every single additional non-inteferring channel selection, drastically logrithmically increases the odds of getting a non-interfering channel selection. 5.4G is the best thinng that happened to MESH. Unfortuneately, worthless for super cell design. But if MESH embrases 5.4 like it should, it leaves 5.8Ghz for Super cell. Otherwise the MESH designer is destined to fail, because it will become a battle that the Super Cell guy won't be able to give up on until his death, as he has no other option but the range he is using. The mesh provider has options. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 6:29 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Unless you expect to handle only very low levels of traffic, avoid mesh nodes with only one radio. Choose nodes that have one radio on 2.4 GHz for customer connections and one radio on 5.8 GHz for backhauling. In other words, separate the access traffic from the backhaul traffic. Your overall throughput capability will be many times greater. jack ISPlists wrote: Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment. I have a small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire town and I'm thinking of using mesh technology. Any ideas would be great. Thanks, Steve -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List:
RE: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
Tom, IMHO mesh is great for lighting up downtown and city parks etc. but it has yet to prove itself in a large deployment with 1,000's of customers or 1,000's of nodes deployed. I too have first hand experience backhauling several mesh projects and the mesh edge so far has not been easy at all. Here in Northeast USA 15 mesh nodes per square miles doesn't even come close to what's needed. I've also found that implementing mesh in major metro areas, where there are already 1,000's of wifi access points, shrinks coverage models and can turn a well intentioned response to an RFP laughable. I believe Philadelphia projects 70k users in 5 years on 3900 mesh nodes backhauled by Canopy. We'll see. I'd love to see a comparison of our BreezeAccess VL with one mile centers and our high powered DS11 on the edge in Anytown USA vs mesh. I'm working on a few of my guys to do such a test so stay tuned. What it comes down to is the fact that Matt may have just the right terrain and noise floor without the traffic that some of these larger projects will get hammered with so it works for his company. Mesh is a tool for a certain job just like other gear. But I don't believe mesh should be construed as broadband for the masses in any major metro area. Brad -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 2:28 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Matt, I think you are misinterpretting my comments. Don't read more in to them than are there. I am in no way attacking the validity of your experience or comments. I'm simply asking for more detail, so that I can learn from your experience. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] TRANGO!!
How do you know 700 Mhz isn't on the roadmap? News to me. Brad -Original Message- From: G.Villarini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 8:15 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] TRANGO!! One thing is that Wimax wont certify gear in the 700 , 900 or other bands and the other is that Manufacturers release gear in those band with the same specs of Wimax, just without the Wimax logo... Gino A. Villarini, Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.aeronetpr.com 787.273.4143 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 9:41 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] TRANGO!! On that note, If I didnt hear it from 3-4 manufacturers directly, and ODM's then I would'nt believe it myself. Still doesnt change the fact that wimax sadly looked over 900mhz ( not that a wimax phy or mac would work well in 900 mhz ) - Jeff On Jan 21, 2006, at 3:10 PM, Richard Munoz wrote: AFAIK, Jeff does not promote hype, just facts. -Richard M. Not more Hypemax! Jeffrey Thomas wrote: Because in 6 months, you will be able to buy a Wimax Cpe for 200 bucks. - Jeff On Jan 18, 2006, at 4:22 PM, Kurt Fankhauser wrote: Hope that affects the price of everything else, at this point who would by an 802.11a cpe for $250 when you can buy a trango for $150? Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC 114 S. Walnut St. Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:wireless- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Rohrbacher Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 1:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] TRANGO!! Well MAC.Did we find the right news? Or is there more??? Mac Dearman wrote: Whooa - - I got a phone call yesterday from Trango that made me smile all over! Guys and Gals - - - -- hang on as we are about to enter the Twilight Zone!! Trango has some news that is gonna make all of us smile deep, long and wide!!! I am not at liberty to disclose the info - - but they will in a day or two from what I understand. Man its gonna be G R E A T!! giggling like a little girl Mac Dearman Maximum Access, LLC. Authorized Barracuda Reseller MikroTik RouterOS Certified www.inetsouth.com www.mac-tel.us Rayville, La. 318.728.8600 318.303.4227 318.303.4229 -- Brian Rohrbacher Reliable Internet, LLC www.reliableinter.net Cell 269-838-8338 Caught up in the Air 1 Thess. 4:17 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.20/233 - Release Date: 1/18/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Brian Rohrbacher Reliable Internet, LLC www.reliableinter.net Cell 269-838-8338 Caught up in the Air 1 Thess. 4:17 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.21/235 - Release Date: 1/19/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz
John, Typically 4 sector base stations are built with either 5.3 or a licensed link as backhaul. With BreezeAccess VL, true data sector performance is 28 meg's in a 20 Mhz channel and half that in 10 Mhz Next firmware release is going to mid 30's in a 20 Mhz channel (again true data rates). I know of one sector that has 200 sub's attached although most sectors have less than 100. This customer looked at most manufacturer's gear and concluded Alvarion had the management feature sets, ease of batch processing for firmware uploads, obstructed NLOS for their application, and a host of other likes including Alvarion's support infrastructure. To be honest I don't think we have many Alvarion Operators that subscribe here but that doesn't mean there aren't a crap load of them out there which should be obviuos to everyone. Typically our Operators use Alvarion support Application Engineers and Alvarion web servers such as Mike Cowan's at ACC when needed. This could end up being a long dialog about the differences in operators, products, and ROI models but I won't go there. Brad -Original Message- From: John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 11:00 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Brad, Could you tell us more about what infrastructure is required to support the 2400 subscriber system you are referring to? How many tower locations, sectors per tower, backhaul used, etc.? This is interesting stuff for sure. I was wondering if we were ever going to hear any Alvarion stories here. I hear success stories on many different brand gear on the lists and I know people use Alvarion successfully but we rarely hear any stories about the systems. Is this Alvarion customer a member of this list server? I would love to hear from him also, or any other Alvarion based WISP for that matter, how their system performs in different conditions, scalability, etc. This is an open industry list and provided the information is used in a context of informing WISPs and is not a sales advertisement I would gladly listen to what you guys have to say about the VL platform. Brad, do you think this 2400 subscriber WISP operator would be interested in joining WISPA? We could use some input from more WISPs who are doing well. Thanks, Scriv Brad Larson wrote: Not all OFDM radios are created equally (especially PTMP). In many areas of NorthEast USA we have 1 mile radius's with eave mounted BreezeAccess VL Subscribers (5.8 Ghz) doing mod 6 which reflects a 10 meg true data rate. Typically these are obstructed NLOS links instead of going thru 1 mile of solid treelines. Rain/Ice does occasionally change mod levels but more than adequate data rates are achieved with this model. I have 2,400 subscribers (and growing) deployed in this fashion with one customer. Brad -Original Message- From: Blair Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 9:37 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz My practical tests show that 2.4GHz works better in a rural Near LosS environment. This is using 802.11b/g vs 802.11a. I have had no luck with 5.3/5.8GHz in a rural Near/Non LoS environment. On the other hand, 5.8Ghz seems to be fine at range in LoS conditions. Go figure. Paul Hendry wrote: Just noticed that the document also says that 5GHz is better for passing through damp tree areas than 2.4GHz as 2.4GHz is very close to the O-H frequency which water is full of and therefore water absorbs 2.4GHz signals considerably more than 5GHz. If this is true then why is 2.4GHz better for tree NLOS environments than 5GHz? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: 03 January 2006 11:48 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz I thought that was it but needed someone to clarify ;) What about 5GHz penetrating walls much better than 2.4GHz? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Delp Sent: 03 January 2006 11:44 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Paul, 5 GHz works NLOS in an urban environment. Bouncing around buildings, etc. Look at the success of Redline and Orthogon. OFDM and 5 GHz works well for them. An environment with trees is different. Trees absorb the signals, instead of bouncing them. Especially wet trees! We utilize 2.4 at every pop, mainly because of the low cost for deployment, and general coverage. We utilize 5 GHz frequently and also 900 MHz for NLOS issues. I hope this helps Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:44 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Ola everybody, I hope everyone had a great Christmas and New Year and are all ready for 2006, the year of the WISP :) When I have
RE: [WISPA] 5.8Ghz Multi-point radios
Matt, How much capacity do you need per 5.8 Ghz sector? Is this a business or residential rollout or both? How many subscribers per sector do you want to support? How large do you want to scale this network and is managment, batch firmware loads for radio updates, vlan tagging, voip support important to you? Brad -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 7:02 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] 5.8Ghz Multi-point radios We are looking to start deploying 5.8Ghz multi-point radios at some of our sites. I am hoping some folks on this list can share experiences and ideas on what radios might meet our needs. We have experimented with Canopy and Trango, but would really like some better choices. From a specification standpoint, Canopy general meets our needs, but we don't like being constrained on the antenna. We would like to use sectors bigger than 60 degrees and we would like to use horizontal polarization. We don't want to use Trango for no other reason than they can't work with distributors. We really like the flexibility on many 802.11a-based radios and certainly the price, but the contention aspects of the protocol and the perception of Wi-Fi being a consumer grade technology stop us from going that route. Any thoughts from the list? -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] 5.8Ghz Multi-point radios
Will this network be scaling to 10 subscribers in one town or 1,000 or more subscribers over many square miles? The more you scale may mean that features such as batch processing for easy firmware upgrades and other management features will save you money in the long run. Ongoing costs and radio features are seldom talked about when a question like yours is asked. X brand is cheaper may not be what you want or need to hear. Brad -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 2:44 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 5.8Ghz Multi-point radios We want as much capacity as possible, but certainly 10Mbps minimum. This is for business customers only and we won't be oversubscribing the sectors, so there isn't a need to support many subscribers per sector. Not sure what you are asking in terms of scale, could you be more specific? VoIP will be used across the radio links however the traffic is encapsulated in MPLS. -Matt Brad Larson wrote: Matt, How much capacity do you need per 5.8 Ghz sector? Is this a business or residential rollout or both? How many subscribers per sector do you want to support? How large do you want to scale this network and is managment, batch firmware loads for radio updates, vlan tagging, voip support important to you? Brad -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 7:02 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] 5.8Ghz Multi-point radios We are looking to start deploying 5.8Ghz multi-point radios at some of our sites. I am hoping some folks on this list can share experiences and ideas on what radios might meet our needs. We have experimented with Canopy and Trango, but would really like some better choices. From a specification standpoint, Canopy general meets our needs, but we don't like being constrained on the antenna. We would like to use sectors bigger than 60 degrees and we would like to use horizontal polarization. We don't want to use Trango for no other reason than they can't work with distributors. We really like the flexibility on many 802.11a-based radios and certainly the price, but the contention aspects of the protocol and the perception of Wi-Fi being a consumer grade technology stop us from going that route. Any thoughts from the list? -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Alvarion VL as a PtMP Platform
No firmware upgrade will be available and it's a different chipset on both base stations and cpe. But we'll support VL for a long time so you won't have to worry about a deployment getting canned. Brad -Original Message- From: John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 4:23 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Alvarion VL as a PtMP Platform Is there a firmware upgrade path for WiMAX through the VL product line or is it a hardware change? Feel free to have someone contact me offlist for pricing information. I have a need for a PtMP system with more capacity than I have now with my current system. I do not know of many systems that meet the specs you list here and I already know many people are quite fond of the product. Maybe this time the price won't drive me away as has been the case in the past. Please do not take that as a slam. It is not. I know the quality is there and it is a matter of economics for me only that has ever kept me away from Alvarion products. You guys build good stuff and in some markets the price is easily recovered through ROI. Thanks, Scriv Brad Larson wrote: John, Typically 4 sector base stations are built with either 5.3 or a licensed link as backhaul. With BreezeAccess VL, true data sector performance is 28 meg's in a 20 Mhz channel and half that in 10 Mhz Next firmware release is going to mid 30's in a 20 Mhz channel (again true data rates). I know of one sector that has 200 sub's attached although most sectors have less than 100. This customer looked at most manufacturer's gear and concluded Alvarion had the management feature sets, ease of batch processing for firmware uploads, obstructed NLOS for their application, and a host of other likes including Alvarion's support infrastructure. To be honest I don't think we have many Alvarion Operators that subscribe here but that doesn't mean there aren't a crap load of them out there which should be obviuos to everyone. Typically our Operators use Alvarion support Application Engineers and Alvarion web servers such as Mike Cowan's at ACC when needed. This could end up being a long dialog about the differences in operators, products, and ROI models but I won't go there. Brad -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Alvarion VL as a PtMP Platform
Jeff, In what Frequency? There is allot of BS out there in the first wave of testing for those that have yet to get a product to market. We can discuss if you would like? Brad -Original Message- From: jeffrey thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 8:29 PM To: WISPA General List; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL as a PtMP Platform The only product on the market today that will have backwards compatibility to wimax where a cpe can talk to a wimax base station is Aperto. Additionally, Alvarion will not be one of the first round products certified for wimax, Airspan and Aperto however, will be. - Jeff On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 15:22:30 -0600, John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Is there a firmware upgrade path for WiMAX through the VL product line or is it a hardware change? Feel free to have someone contact me offlist for pricing information. I have a need for a PtMP system with more capacity than I have now with my current system. I do not know of many systems that meet the specs you list here and I already know many people are quite fond of the product. Maybe this time the price won't drive me away as has been the case in the past. Please do not take that as a slam. It is not. I know the quality is there and it is a matter of economics for me only that has ever kept me away from Alvarion products. You guys build good stuff and in some markets the price is easily recovered through ROI. Thanks, Scriv Brad Larson wrote: John, Typically 4 sector base stations are built with either 5.3 or a licensed link as backhaul. With BreezeAccess VL, true data sector performance is 28 meg's in a 20 Mhz channel and half that in 10 Mhz Next firmware release is going to mid 30's in a 20 Mhz channel (again true data rates). I know of one sector that has 200 sub's attached although most sectors have less than 100. This customer looked at most manufacturer's gear and concluded Alvarion had the management feature sets, ease of batch processing for firmware uploads, obstructed NLOS for their application, and a host of other likes including Alvarion's support infrastructure. To be honest I don't think we have many Alvarion Operators that subscribe here but that doesn't mean there aren't a crap load of them out there which should be obviuos to everyone. Typically our Operators use Alvarion support Application Engineers and Alvarion web servers such as Mike Cowan's at ACC when needed. This could end up being a long dialog about the differences in operators, products, and ROI models but I won't go there. Brad -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz
Dustin, Typically 50 feet above the tree line for this customer gets their 1 mile cell sites which is what the business model plans for. They garner better tower rates when not asking for the primo higher tower locations. I've been trying to get Tom to travel and see a site for a long time. The base station antennas are the 90 or 120 sectors we ship with the BreezeAccess VL platform. Brad Brad Larson Northeast Regional Manager Alvarion -Original Message- From: dustin jurman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 10:48 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Hey Brad, what are the heights of the base stations? Are they tower mounted and what antenna's are they using? Dustin -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Larson Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 10:34 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Not all OFDM radios are created equally (especially PTMP). In many areas of NorthEast USA we have 1 mile radius's with eave mounted BreezeAccess VL Subscribers (5.8 Ghz) doing mod 6 which reflects a 10 meg true data rate. Typically these are obstructed NLOS links instead of going thru 1 mile of solid treelines. Rain/Ice does occasionally change mod levels but more than adequate data rates are achieved with this model. I have 2,400 subscribers (and growing) deployed in this fashion with one customer. Brad -Original Message- From: Blair Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 9:37 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz My practical tests show that 2.4GHz works better in a rural Near LosS environment. This is using 802.11b/g vs 802.11a. I have had no luck with 5.3/5.8GHz in a rural Near/Non LoS environment. On the other hand, 5.8Ghz seems to be fine at range in LoS conditions. Go figure. Paul Hendry wrote: Just noticed that the document also says that 5GHz is better for passing through damp tree areas than 2.4GHz as 2.4GHz is very close to the O-H frequency which water is full of and therefore water absorbs 2.4GHz signals considerably more than 5GHz. If this is true then why is 2.4GHz better for tree NLOS environments than 5GHz? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: 03 January 2006 11:48 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz I thought that was it but needed someone to clarify ;) What about 5GHz penetrating walls much better than 2.4GHz? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Delp Sent: 03 January 2006 11:44 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Paul, 5 GHz works NLOS in an urban environment. Bouncing around buildings, etc. Look at the success of Redline and Orthogon. OFDM and 5 GHz works well for them. An environment with trees is different. Trees absorb the signals, instead of bouncing them. Especially wet trees! We utilize 2.4 at every pop, mainly because of the low cost for deployment, and general coverage. We utilize 5 GHz frequently and also 900 MHz for NLOS issues. I hope this helps Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:44 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz Ola everybody, I hope everyone had a great Christmas and New Year and are all ready for 2006, the year of the WISP :) When I have setup wireless in an area it has always depended on the Geographic's of the area as to if we deploy 2.4GHz or 5GHz and I have always decided that 2.4 should be used where NLOS could be an issue. This decision has always been based on the fact that the lower frequency will pass through trees a lot easier however I have recently read a white paper that suggests otherwise. Basically the document says that the higher the frequency, the better the scatter (the ability to bounce of and around objects). It also says that 5GHz is better at penetrating walls. So my question is, have I been basing some of our deployments on false information or am I missing something here? I know that in tests I have seen a more stable signal at 2.4GHz in a NLOS environment but is this just a fluke? Cheers, P. -- Blair Davis AOL IM Screen Name -- Theory240 West Michigan Wireless ISP 269-686-8648 A division of: Camp Communication Services, INC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer
RE: [WISPA] Alvarion just made Cramers BUY list.
"Just incase I have missed something... has anyone actually shipped a Wimax compliant product? Is the Wimax standard been ratified? I kind of tuned out the hype about a year ago, and havent really been following it." Pete,There are well over 110 Wimax trials going on right now in which I believe 9 have gone production so far. Just because 3 manufacturer's products have not been certified as interoperable doesn't mean that Wimax doesn't exist. I believe the majority of these trial networks by far are Alvarion and any operator can easily upgrade firmware if any changes need to be made prior to certfications. And yes we have always had batch processing across our product line for firmware upgradeswhere an admin can easily upgrade 1,000's of radios with a couple of keystrokes (how some of you put up with anything less is beyond me). I watched Cramer last night after I got a phone call from one of my customers.Cramerdid a pretty good job except for the common misconceptionof "30 miles NLOS" which the press has babbled about ever sense their first misinterpretations. 802.16e (mobile Wimax) will be ratified by end of year with products being trialed and tested in mid 2006. Wimax for unlicensed is still be worked on. If you're interested you can do a google search on 802.16h to get the details. And as usual Alvarion is doing the heavy lifting. Bradhttp://www.alvarion-usa.com/RunTime/CorpInf_30130.asp?fuf=439type=item -Original Message-From: Pete Davis. NoDial.net [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 6:52 AMTo: WISPA General ListSubject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion just made Cramers BUY list. For the record, I like Jim Cramer, and listen to him when I can. I don't always see things as sunshin-ey or as cloudy as he does. to quote Cramer in Yahoo finance: Cramer is bullish on Israeli wireless broadband connectivity company Alvarion (ALVR:Nasdaq - commentary - research - Cramer's Take) as a play on the expected growth in WiMax. WiMax, said Cramer, could be huge as it has a range of 30 miles as opposed to WiFi, which is measured in feet.Alvarion has made a profit in just two years of its 10-year history, though, said Cramer. But, at $7.67 -- where the stock closed Thursday -- the stock is cheap, he said. Cramer believes that Alvarion's stock has bottomed and that the catalyst for the stock to move higher should come early next year when industry standards for WiMax are expected to be decided upon. Asked about the possibility of Alvarion getting acquired, Cramer said he never speculates on takeovers when a company's earnings are declining. He is "playing it for the earnings, and they've got to come back."I don't know what makes Alvarion's wimax [not released yet] entry into the market any better than the wimax product offerings from every other [not released yet] entry into the market. Kind of a funny thing to speculate on, and talking to ANY manufacturer, you get the impression that THEY have the Wimax market wrapped up just as soon as they start shipping, since Wimax will offer us 30 mile NLOS 400Gbps $40CPE etc etc. Manufacturing problems, marketing problems, pricing problems etc may all fly in the face of ANY manufacturer. I am not trying to downplay Alvarion's products, strategies, or company, but I don't know about risking my hard earned money on a non-shipping product line. On the other hand, $8 is probably cheap for this company.Just incase I have missed something... has anyone actually shipped a Wimax compliant product? Is the Wimax standard been ratified? I kind of tuned out the hype about a year ago, and havent really been following it. Pete DavisNoDial.netGeorge wrote: Congradts to anyone who owns Alvarion stock. You'll see a nice bunp tomorrow. George This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned byPineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses.This mail passed through mail.alvarion.comThis footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned byPineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
