Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
They both have Ethernet ports! DSJ -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 4:16 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 I was told that Redlines's WiMax solution would be interoperable - but that was a salesmen speaking. On 12/14/08, Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com wrote: Well its uses Wimax MAC, but ists not Wimax Forum Certified so the manufactures don't have to comply with interoperability Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 1:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 So this stuff then is not really WiMAX, it;s just another proprietary system, right? George Blair Davis wrote: rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: Don't I remember that there was a lot of hype about interoperability? That's why many of us still stick to the old a/b/g stuff. We hate the idea of getting orphaned. Right on! Some of us HAVE been orphaned! -- -- -- -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. --- Henry Spencer WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 update
Yah... to reduce latency, keep the base at a frame duration of 5ms. The 1/4 cyclic prefix will help if you're getting dropped packets, but 1/8 gives more throughout. Travis: give us a call and we'll help you sort this out. Thanks. Travis Johnson wrote: Actually the ping times went to 60ms with those changes. Travis John Scrivner wrote: Switch to 1/4 carrier and 10 ms. I bet it clears up. Scriv -- Milton Calnek BSc Manager Wireless Application Engineering Support milton.cal...@vecima.com 1-306-955-7075 x4687 1-306-280-9818 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
I can say for the Tranzeo weather proofing rj45 setup is ok.. I haven't had any problems with it seeping water. We have been using these for 4 years (note I am knocking on wood right now) :) Thomas P Galla t...@bluegrass.net BluegrassNet Voice (502) 589.INET [4638] Fax 502-315-0581 321 East Breckinridge St Louisville KY 40203 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 1:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Hi, We received our Vecima trial kit (one AP and five CPE) on Thursday afternoon. We have not yet put it on a tower, as there were several issues with their software on the AP... but here's some info thus far: The base station is quite large. It measures approximately 14 inches tall x 8 inches wide x 6 inches thick. It weighs about 25 pounds (seriously). It has an RJ-45 ethernet connector and an N-male connector on the bottom. (I was lead to believe they had omni, 90 degree, 120 degree and connectorized versions, and I requested the 120 unit, but instead got this with an LMR jumper and an MTI 120 antenna). We began by getting into the AP and making some normal changes (downlink was set to 50%, so we changed it to 70%). Also the center frequency was set to 3.410 so we changed that to 3.650. We also changed to 7mhz channel size. We then applied and rebooted... and then we could no longer get into the radio configuration page (where we had just made all those changes). So we did a factory reset and tried again. Same thing. We opened a trouble ticket with Vecima the next morning, and they were able to reproduce the problem in their lab. Then about 3 hours later, another tech called back and told us we needed to upgrade the firmware (even though the first tech said we were running the latest). We upgraded and that fixed the problem... but then we had a new problem. The Allowed MAC address file somehow got corrupted... so they had to SSH into the base station and fix that file. (By the way, this AP is just running Linux 2.6.14 kernel). We were now able to make a connection to one of the CPE (after setting up the service classifiers, service flows, and adding a service flow to this MAC address). Making a link on our test bench (10 feet away), we had a -55ish signal... however, the ping times and speeds were terrible (2000ms and at the most 2Mbps). I am thinking it was because this is running OFDM and in close proximity, the signals bounce all over. Last, all three techs that I talked to at Vecima asked Do you have an NMS (network management server)? and I had to continually say no and then they would say oh... I don't know how to do this manually. One of the reasons we were testing this solution is that it did not require their NMS to function... however, even their tech support is pretty limited if you don't have it. Their NMS se rver is about $5,000 (but a single server will support an entire network, with unlimited AP's and CPE). On to the CPE: This is one of the worst designs of a CPE that I have ever seen. The entire unit is made by Tranzeo and looks just like their normal 2.4 CPE. It has the bar of lights on the top showing Power, LAN, RSSI, etc. The mounting bracket is the L bracket that bolts to the back and has a U-bolt and clamp to hook to the pipe. The biggest problem is how the ethernet cable connects. It has the white cover plate that goes over the RJ-45 connector that has to be bolted to the back of the radio... the problem is, the pass-thru connector is not big enough to allow an already crimped RJ-45 cable to pass thru... meaning, you have to run the cable thru the white plastic thing, then crimp it, then plug it in, and then screw the nuts down holding the white cover. If you ever have to replace the radio with something different, you have to cut the cable and then re-crimp. Also, I can guarantee that water is going to get into the RJ-45 as it is on the back of the radio and the water will always be trying to get into the white cover and then will just flow right into the RJ-45. I have attached a picture that is 99% the same as this unit (except this unit is smaller than the picture). The other issue is the PoE injector that comes with the unit. This is the worst PoE that I have ever seen. I don't understand why they can't use a grounded PoE that doesn't require a separate ground wire. Use the ground built into the electrical wiring that is already there (like the PacWireless PoE units). Attached is a picture of the PoE that was supplied. I will be testing the speeds and range this Monday (assuming the weather is better... we got 6 of snow and 40MPH winds last night). I will post more results as I have them. At this point, I am not really impressed with a $4,000 AP that's just running Linux. Travis Microserv No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
I'll chime in with a few comments: I admit to having been frustrated by the requirements in the 3.65 GHz ruling by the ambiguity of the cooperation requirements and for sure there are no first in rights. However, what I am seeing thus far in practice is that first movers do enjoy a meaningful advantage in their markets. Since WiMAX does represent a more significant CAPEX investment on infrastructure, operators are reluctant to deploy aggressively in a market where several operators are already live. Second, since the rule does not define neither the nature nor extent of the cooperation, the first in operators seem to have a leg up with the next in folks needing to work around them to some extent. At a minimum, cooperation as it relates to 3.65 GHz is a boon for the lawyer class and since most WISPs are loathe to deploy an attorney to battle the first in's attorney, many opt to find greener pastures. Also, according to me Redline friends, we are learning that the FCC has rejected some registrations of multiple operators on the same tower site. So on balance, the interference risks in 3.65 GHz are minimal as compared to 5.x GHz and certainly the other ISM bands. I do wish that the FCC would use some of the 3.65 HGz license fees to create an enforcement pool, as well as defining a more specific set of rules and procedures for the human side of 3.65 GHz cooperation. Cheers, Patrick Leary Aperto Networks 813.426.4230 mobile -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 9:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 I consider my reply to be of enough value that I am sending out on the WISPA members list. You will see my reply there. Scriv On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:28 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net wrote: John, What are your thoughts about using the 3.65ghz band that has no capabilities to handle any type of noise rejection? One of my big concerns with 3.65ghz is spending a lot of money on base stations, NMS, etc. and then having someone purchase a $3,000 LigoWave 3.65 point to point link and shut my system down completely. I believe this to be a _very_ real concern in this space. I know the Vecima equipment is just a frequency change from their 3.5ghz equipment. I know equipment in that band has nothing to deal with noise, because they are licensed frequencies and therefore don't need to worry about interference. Do you have concerns about this? The FCC has already said that problems will need to be worked out, and that they are not going to step in and do anything. It will NOT be a first come first serve basis as many believe. Thoughts? Comments? Travis Microserv John Scrivner wrote: My thoughts inline below: On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net t...@ida.net wrote: U pricing is WAY, WAY different. Redline AP's are around $10k Vecima AP's are around $4k Redline has an FCC approved system with 3 - 120 degree sectors with a 3-way splitter which allows for full 360 degree coverage now with one sector controller with upgrade path for more sector controllers as your needs increase over time. Redline supports uplink sub-channelization which adds about 15 db of increased receive sensitivity to your CPE to base station link. I find the cost is justified for the Redline system and I have one online that I am very happy with. I am moving my leased line connections to WiMax with better speeds and erquivalent reliability. The ROI for this base station ist less than 2.5 years now and will improve as I add more customers. I feel very satisfied with the Redline system and am confident we will add more Redline bases in the future. Redline CPE's are $300 each (even in 250 quantity) Vecima CPE's are less than $249 Redline CPEs are built like a tank. They have the Intel WiMax Ruby chipset (the best available at any price). Future migration to 802.16e for this CPE is a firmware flash. It is true that you have to buy 72 radios (not 250) to get the $300 price point. They are well worth the money. I take a Redline CPE in with me on sales calls. The quality helps me sell WiMax.. It is that nice of a piece. It is the best quality CPE device I have used. It is very similar to the quality look and feel of the Alvarion VL CPE radios. And, I was told Tranzeo is making Redline's CPE as well? Could you send a picture of the Redline CPE? This is not true at all. Tranzeo and Redline CPEs are night and day different from one another. The quality of the Redline CPE was a big part of my decision to choose Redline as our WiMax platform. Nothing touches the Intel Ruby chipset. It is the best going. Scriv -- -- WISPA Wants You! Join today!http://signup.wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
Patrick, Could you please share the exact information about the FCC rejecting applications for the same tower? At ISPCon a month ago, there were several people there that had deployed 3.65 and had even registered on the same tower as other 3.65 people and the applications went through just fine. I think you are giving people the impression that if they are first to the tower, they get entire use. This is NOT going to be the case. Travis Microserv Patrick Leary wrote: I'll chime in with a few comments: I admit to having been frustrated by the requirements in the 3.65 GHz ruling by the ambiguity of the cooperation requirements and for sure there are no first in rights. However, what I am seeing thus far in practice is that first movers do enjoy a meaningful advantage in their markets. Since WiMAX does represent a more significant CAPEX investment on infrastructure, operators are reluctant to deploy aggressively in a market where several operators are already live. Second, since the rule does not define neither the nature nor extent of the cooperation, the first in operators seem to have a leg up with the next in folks needing to work around them to some extent. At a minimum, cooperation as it relates to 3.65 GHz is a boon for the lawyer class and since most WISPs are loathe to deploy an attorney to battle the first in's attorney, many opt to find greener pastures. Also, according to me Redline friends, we are learning that the FCC has rejected some registrations of multiple operators on the same tower site. So on balance, the interference risks in 3.65 GHz are minimal as compared to 5.x GHz and certainly the other ISM bands. I do wish that the FCC would use some of the 3.65 HGz license fees to create an enforcement pool, as well as defining a more specific set of rules and procedures for the human side of 3.65 GHz cooperation. Cheers, Patrick Leary Aperto Networks 813.426.4230 mobile -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 9:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 I consider my reply to be of enough value that I am sending out on the WISPA members list. You will see my reply there. Scriv On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:28 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net wrote: John, What are your thoughts about using the 3.65ghz band that has no capabilities to handle any type of noise rejection? One of my big concerns with 3.65ghz is spending a lot of money on base stations, NMS, etc. and then having someone purchase a $3,000 LigoWave 3.65 point to point link and shut my system down completely. I believe this to be a _very_ real concern in this space. I know the Vecima equipment is just a frequency change from their 3.5ghz equipment. I know equipment in that band has nothing to deal with noise, because they are licensed frequencies and therefore don't need to worry about interference. Do you have concerns about this? The FCC has already said that problems will need to be "worked out", and that they are not going to step in and do anything. It will NOT be a first come first serve basis as many believe. Thoughts? Comments? Travis Microserv John Scrivner wrote: My thoughts inline below: On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net t...@ida.net wrote: U pricing is WAY, WAY different. Redline AP's are around $10k Vecima AP's are around $4k Redline has an FCC approved system with 3 - 120 degree sectors with a 3-way splitter which allows for full 360 degree coverage now with one sector controller with upgrade path for more sector controllers as your needs increase over time. Redline supports uplink sub-channelization which adds about 15 db of increased receive sensitivity to your CPE to base station link. I find the cost is justified for the Redline system and I have one online that I am very happy with. I am moving my leased line connections to WiMax with better speeds and erquivalent reliability. The ROI for this base station ist less than 2.5 years now and will improve as I add more customers. I feel very satisfied with the Redline system and am confident we will add more Redline bases in the future. Redline CPE's are $300 each (even in 250 quantity) Vecima CPE's are less than $249 Redline CPEs are built like a tank. They have the Intel WiMax Ruby chipset (the best available at any price). Future migration to 802.16e for this CPE is a firmware flash. It is true that you have to buy 72 radios (not 250) to get the $300 price point. They are well worth the money. I take a Redline CPE in with me on sales calls. The quality helps me sell WiMax.. It is that nice of a piece. It is the best quality CPE device I have used. It is very similar to the qu
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
Hi Travis, I wish I had specifics, but I don't have anything other than an anecdotal story told to me by Redline when I was at a conference. I had always been under the impression an operator could register for the same locations. Patrick From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Patrick, Could you please share the exact information about the FCC rejecting applications for the same tower? At ISPCon a month ago, there were several people there that had deployed 3.65 and had even registered on the same tower as other 3.65 people and the applications went through just fine. I think you are giving people the impression that if they are first to the tower, they get entire use. This is NOT going to be the case. Travis Microserv Patrick Leary wrote: I'll chime in with a few comments: I admit to having been frustrated by the requirements in the 3.65 GHz ruling by the ambiguity of the cooperation requirements and for sure there are no first in rights. However, what I am seeing thus far in practice is that first movers do enjoy a meaningful advantage in their markets. Since WiMAX does represent a more significant CAPEX investment on infrastructure, operators are reluctant to deploy aggressively in a market where several operators are already live. Second, since the rule does not define neither the nature nor extent of the cooperation, the first in operators seem to have a leg up with the next in folks needing to work around them to some extent. At a minimum, cooperation as it relates to 3.65 GHz is a boon for the lawyer class and since most WISPs are loathe to deploy an attorney to battle the first in's attorney, many opt to find greener pastures. Also, according to me Redline friends, we are learning that the FCC has rejected some registrations of multiple operators on the same tower site. So on balance, the interference risks in 3.65 GHz are minimal as compared to 5.x GHz and certainly the other ISM bands. I do wish that the FCC would use some of the 3.65 HGz license fees to create an enforcement pool, as well as defining a more specific set of rules and procedures for the human side of 3.65 GHz cooperation. Cheers, Patrick Leary Aperto Networks 813.426.4230 mobile -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 9:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 I consider my reply to be of enough value that I am sending out on the WISPA members list. You will see my reply there. Scriv On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:28 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net mailto:t...@ida.net wrote: John, What are your thoughts about using the 3.65ghz band that has no capabilities to handle any type of noise rejection? One of my big concerns with 3.65ghz is spending a lot of money on base stations, NMS, etc. and then having someone purchase a $3,000 LigoWave 3.65 point to point link and shut my system down completely. I believe this to be a _very_ real concern in this space. I know the Vecima equipment is just a frequency change from their 3.5ghz equipment. I know equipment in that band has nothing to deal with noise, because they are licensed frequencies and therefore don't need to worry about interference. Do you have concerns about this? The FCC has already said that problems will need to be worked out, and that they are not going to step in and do anything. It will NOT be a first come first serve basis as many believe. Thoughts? Comments? Travis Microserv John Scrivner wrote: My thoughts inline below: On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net mailto:t...@ida.net t...@ida.net mailto:t...@ida.net wrote: U pricing is WAY, WAY different. Redline AP's are around $10k
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
Patrick, Respectfully I have been told the exact opposite by a WISP that was going to do a large 3.65 deployment, except the local teleco registered all of the high ground in the area preventing them from registering their own sites. The teleco has no intention of deploying the gear, so now they are in a heck of a problem. Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:22 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Hi Travis, I wish I had specifics, but I don't have anything other than an anecdotal story told to me by Redline when I was at a conference. I had always been under the impression an operator could register for the same locations. Patrick From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Patrick, Could you please share the exact information about the FCC rejecting applications for the same tower? At ISPCon a month ago, there were several people there that had deployed 3.65 and had even registered on the same tower as other 3.65 people and the applications went through just fine. I think you are giving people the impression that if they are first to the tower, they get entire use. This is NOT going to be the case. Travis Microserv Patrick Leary wrote: I'll chime in with a few comments: I admit to having been frustrated by the requirements in the 3.65 GHz ruling by the ambiguity of the cooperation requirements and for sure there are no first in rights. However, what I am seeing thus far in practice is that first movers do enjoy a meaningful advantage in their markets. Since WiMAX does represent a more significant CAPEX investment on infrastructure, operators are reluctant to deploy aggressively in a market where several operators are already live. Second, since the rule does not define neither the nature nor extent of the cooperation, the first in operators seem to have a leg up with the next in folks needing to work around them to some extent. At a minimum, cooperation as it relates to 3.65 GHz is a boon for the lawyer class and since most WISPs are loathe to deploy an attorney to battle the first in's attorney, many opt to find greener pastures. Also, according to me Redline friends, we are learning that the FCC has rejected some registrations of multiple operators on the same tower site. So on balance, the interference risks in 3.65 GHz are minimal as compared to 5.x GHz and certainly the other ISM bands. I do wish that the FCC would use some of the 3.65 HGz license fees to create an enforcement pool, as well as defining a more specific set of rules and procedures for the human side of 3.65 GHz cooperation. Cheers, Patrick Leary Aperto Networks 813.426.4230 mobile -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 9:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 I consider my reply to be of enough value that I am sending out on the WISPA members list. You will see my reply there. Scriv On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:28 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net mailto:t...@ida.net wrote: John, What are your thoughts about using the 3.65ghz band that has no capabilities to handle any type of noise rejection? One of my big concerns with 3.65ghz is spending a lot of money on base stations, NMS, etc. and then having someone purchase a $3,000 LigoWave 3.65 point to point link and shut my system down completely. I believe this to be a _very_ real concern in this space. I know the Vecima equipment is just a frequency change from their 3.5ghz equipment. I know equipment in that band has nothing to deal with noise, because they are licensed frequencies and therefore don't need to worry about interference. Do you have concerns about this? The FCC has already said that problems will need to be worked out, and that they are not going to step in and do anything. It will NOT be a first come first serve basis as many believe. Thoughts? Comments? Travis Microserv John Scrivner wrote: My thoughts inline below
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
Hi, We are going to need specifics on this... because this is NOT what the FCC has said would happen nor is it what other people (at ISPCon) have said. There is another story of a telco that owns several of the "ground stations" that prevent others from registering 3.65 in that area... I wonder if those stories are getting mixed together? Travis 3-dB Networks wrote: Patrick, Respectfully I have been told the exact opposite by a WISP that was going to do a large 3.65 deployment, except the local teleco registered all of the high ground in the area preventing them from registering their own sites. The teleco has no intention of deploying the gear, so now they are in a heck of a problem. Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:22 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Hi Travis, I wish I had specifics, but I don't have anything other than an anecdotal story told to me by Redline when I was at a conference. I had always been under the impression an operator could register for the same locations. Patrick From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Patrick, Could you please share the exact information about the FCC rejecting applications for the same tower? At ISPCon a month ago, there were several people there that had deployed 3.65 and had even registered on the same tower as other 3.65 people and the applications went through just fine. I think you are giving people the impression that if they are first to the tower, they get entire use. This is NOT going to be the case. Travis Microserv Patrick Leary wrote: I'll chime in with a few comments: I admit to having been frustrated by the requirements in the 3.65 GHz ruling by the ambiguity of the cooperation requirements and for sure there are no first in rights. However, what I am seeing thus far in practice is that first movers do enjoy a meaningful advantage in their markets. Since WiMAX does represent a more significant CAPEX investment on infrastructure, operators are reluctant to deploy aggressively in a market where several operators are already live. Second, since the rule does not define neither the nature nor extent of the cooperation, the first in operators seem to have a leg up with the next in folks needing to work around them to some extent. At a minimum, cooperation as it relates to 3.65 GHz is a boon for the lawyer class and since most WISPs are loathe to deploy an attorney to battle the first in's attorney, many opt to find greener pastures. Also, according to me Redline friends, we are learning that the FCC has rejected some registrations of multiple operators on the same tower site. So on balance, the interference risks in 3.65 GHz are minimal as compared to 5.x GHz and certainly the other ISM bands. I do wish that the FCC would use some of the 3.65 HGz license fees to create an enforcement pool, as well as defining a more specific set of rules and procedures for the human side of 3.65 GHz cooperation. Cheers, Patrick Leary Aperto Networks 813.426.4230 mobile -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 9:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 I consider my reply to be of enough value that I am sending out on the WISPA members list. You will see my reply there. Scriv On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:28 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net mailto:t...@ida.net wrote: John, What are your thoughts about using the 3.65ghz band that has no capabilities to handle any type of noise rejection? One of my big concerns with 3.65ghz is spending a lot of money on base stations, NMS, etc. and then having someone purchase a $3,000 LigoWave 3.65 point to point link and shut my system down completely. I believe this to be a _very_ real concern in this space. I know the Vecima equipment is just a frequency change from their 3.5ghz equipment. I know equipment in that band has nothing to deal with noise, because they are licensed frequencies and therefore don't need to worry about interference. Do you have concerns about this? The FCC has already said that problems will need to be "worked out", and that they are not going to step in and do anything. It will NOT be a first come first serve basis as many believe. Thoughts? Comments? Travis Microserv John Scrivner wrote: My thoughts inline below: On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net mailto:t...@ida.net t...@ida.net mailto:t...@ida.net wrote: U pricing i
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
I have always assumed multiple operators could register the same site too. Though I was skeptical (and remain so), Remi was really emphatic that the same site could not be registered and he mentioned that the Part 90 rule has some language that prevents multiple registrations. Like you, I'd need proof. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:29 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Hi, We are going to need specifics on this... because this is NOT what the FCC has said would happen nor is it what other people (at ISPCon) have said. There is another story of a telco that owns several of the ground stations that prevent others from registering 3.65 in that area... I wonder if those stories are getting mixed together? Travis 3-dB Networks wrote: Patrick, Respectfully I have been told the exact opposite by a WISP that was going to do a large 3.65 deployment, except the local teleco registered all of the high ground in the area preventing them from registering their own sites. The teleco has no intention of deploying the gear, so now they are in a heck of a problem. Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:22 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Hi Travis, I wish I had specifics, but I don't have anything other than an anecdotal story told to me by Redline when I was at a conference. I had always been under the impression an operator could register for the same locations. Patrick From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Patrick, Could you please share the exact information about the FCC rejecting applications for the same tower? At ISPCon a month ago, there were several people there that had deployed 3.65 and had even registered on the same tower as other 3.65 people and the applications went through just fine. I think you are giving people the impression that if they are first to the tower, they get entire use. This is NOT going to be the case. Travis Microserv Patrick Leary wrote: I'll chime in with a few comments: I admit to having been frustrated by the requirements in the 3.65 GHz ruling by the ambiguity of the cooperation requirements and for sure there are no first in rights. However, what I am seeing thus far in practice is that first movers do enjoy a meaningful advantage in their markets. Since WiMAX does represent a more significant CAPEX investment on infrastructure, operators are reluctant to deploy aggressively in a market where several operators are already live. Second, since the rule does not define neither the nature nor extent of the cooperation, the first in operators seem to have a leg up with the next in folks needing to work around them to some extent. At a minimum, cooperation as it relates to 3.65 GHz is a boon for the lawyer class and since most WISPs are loathe to deploy an attorney to battle the first in's attorney, many opt to find greener pastures. Also, according to me Redline friends, we are learning that the FCC has rejected some registrations of multiple operators on the same tower site. So on balance, the interference risks in 3.65 GHz are minimal as compared to 5.x GHz and certainly
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
Not sure how I can prove it... being that I didn't actually go through this but its what one of our customers told us (and they are not on the list). Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:42 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 I have always assumed multiple operators could register the same site too. Though I was skeptical (and remain so), Remi was really emphatic that the same site could not be registered and he mentioned that the Part 90 rule has some language that prevents multiple registrations. Like you, I'd need proof. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:29 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Hi, We are going to need specifics on this... because this is NOT what the FCC has said would happen nor is it what other people (at ISPCon) have said. There is another story of a telco that owns several of the ground stations that prevent others from registering 3.65 in that area... I wonder if those stories are getting mixed together? Travis 3-dB Networks wrote: Patrick, Respectfully I have been told the exact opposite by a WISP that was going to do a large 3.65 deployment, except the local teleco registered all of the high ground in the area preventing them from registering their own sites. The teleco has no intention of deploying the gear, so now they are in a heck of a problem. Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:22 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Hi Travis, I wish I had specifics, but I don't have anything other than an anecdotal story told to me by Redline when I was at a conference. I had always been under the impression an operator could register for the same locations. Patrick From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Patrick, Could you please share the exact information about the FCC rejecting applications for the same tower? At ISPCon a month ago, there were several people there that had deployed 3.65 and had even registered on the same tower as other 3.65 people and the applications went through just fine. I think you are giving people the impression that if they are first to the tower, they get entire use. This is NOT going to be the case. Travis Microserv Patrick Leary wrote: I'll chime in with a few comments: I admit to having been frustrated by the requirements in the 3.65 GHz ruling by the ambiguity of the cooperation requirements and for sure there are no first in rights. However, what I am seeing thus far in practice is that first movers do enjoy a meaningful advantage in their markets. Since WiMAX does represent a more significant CAPEX investment on infrastructure, operators are reluctant to deploy aggressively in a market where several operators are already live. Second, since the rule does not define neither the nature nor extent of the cooperation, the first in operators seem to have a leg up with the next in folks needing to work around them to some extent. At a minimum, cooperation as it relates to 3.65 GHz is a boon for the lawyer class and since most WISPs are loathe to deploy an attorney to battle the first in's attorney, many opt to find greener pastures. Also, according to me Redline friends, we are learning that the FCC has rejected some registrations of multiple
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
This is easy to confirm, just go ahead an register a base on a know site Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of 3-dB Networks Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Not sure how I can prove it... being that I didn't actually go through this but its what one of our customers told us (and they are not on the list). Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:42 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 I have always assumed multiple operators could register the same site too. Though I was skeptical (and remain so), Remi was really emphatic that the same site could not be registered and he mentioned that the Part 90 rule has some language that prevents multiple registrations. Like you, I'd need proof. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:29 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Hi, We are going to need specifics on this... because this is NOT what the FCC has said would happen nor is it what other people (at ISPCon) have said. There is another story of a telco that owns several of the ground stations that prevent others from registering 3.65 in that area... I wonder if those stories are getting mixed together? Travis 3-dB Networks wrote: Patrick, Respectfully I have been told the exact opposite by a WISP that was going to do a large 3.65 deployment, except the local teleco registered all of the high ground in the area preventing them from registering their own sites. The teleco has no intention of deploying the gear, so now they are in a heck of a problem. Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:22 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Hi Travis, I wish I had specifics, but I don't have anything other than an anecdotal story told to me by Redline when I was at a conference. I had always been under the impression an operator could register for the same locations. Patrick From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Patrick, Could you please share the exact information about the FCC rejecting applications for the same tower? At ISPCon a month ago, there were several people there that had deployed 3.65 and had even registered on the same tower as other 3.65 people and the applications went through just fine. I think you are giving people the impression that if they are first to the tower, they get entire use. This is NOT going to be the case. Travis Microserv Patrick Leary wrote: I'll chime in with a few comments: I admit to having been frustrated by the requirements in the 3.65 GHz ruling by the ambiguity of the cooperation requirements and for sure there are no first in rights. However, what I am seeing thus far in practice is that first movers do enjoy a meaningful advantage in their markets. Since WiMAX does represent a more significant CAPEX investment on infrastructure, operators are reluctant to deploy aggressively in a market where several operators are already live. Second, since the rule does not define neither the nature nor extent of the cooperation, the first in operators seem to have a leg up with the next in folks needing to work around them to some extent. At a minimum, cooperation as it relates to 3.65 GHz is a boon
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
I don't have a license to do it with :-) Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 10:00 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 This is easy to confirm, just go ahead an register a base on a know site Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of 3-dB Networks Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Not sure how I can prove it... being that I didn't actually go through this but its what one of our customers told us (and they are not on the list). Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:42 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 I have always assumed multiple operators could register the same site too. Though I was skeptical (and remain so), Remi was really emphatic that the same site could not be registered and he mentioned that the Part 90 rule has some language that prevents multiple registrations. Like you, I'd need proof. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:29 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Hi, We are going to need specifics on this... because this is NOT what the FCC has said would happen nor is it what other people (at ISPCon) have said. There is another story of a telco that owns several of the ground stations that prevent others from registering 3.65 in that area... I wonder if those stories are getting mixed together? Travis 3-dB Networks wrote: Patrick, Respectfully I have been told the exact opposite by a WISP that was going to do a large 3.65 deployment, except the local teleco registered all of the high ground in the area preventing them from registering their own sites. The teleco has no intention of deploying the gear, so now they are in a heck of a problem. Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:22 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Hi Travis, I wish I had specifics, but I don't have anything other than an anecdotal story told to me by Redline when I was at a conference. I had always been under the impression an operator could register for the same locations. Patrick From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Patrick, Could you please share the exact information about the FCC rejecting applications for the same tower? At ISPCon a month ago, there were several people there that had deployed 3.65 and had even registered on the same tower as other 3.65 people and the applications went through just fine. I think you are giving people the impression that if they are first to the tower, they get entire use. This is NOT going to be the case. Travis Microserv Patrick Leary wrote: I'll chime in with a few comments: I admit to having been frustrated by the requirements in the 3.65 GHz ruling by the ambiguity of the cooperation requirements and for sure there are no first in rights. However, what I am seeing thus far in practice is that first movers do enjoy a meaningful advantage in their markets. Since WiMAX does represent a more significant CAPEX investment on infrastructure, operators are reluctant to deploy aggressively in a market where several operators are already live. Second, since the rule does not define neither the nature nor
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 update
What QOS are you using on that conenction? Berst effort? Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 1:39 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 update Hi, Ok... we mounted the base station yesterday and put up the CPE at our office this morning. It's a 7 mile shot, and we have a -77 RSSI running at 16QAM. We are able to get up to 6Mbps x 6Mbps right now (can't do more because the base station has a limit of 6Mbps per CPE set right now). Here is my biggest complaint with the bandwidth/speed/latency. The BEST possible latency we can get is 35ms. This is with absolutely no traffic, and just a normal Windows XP ping. This is not acceptable for this type of equipment. I know people have talked about Redline being about the same. Any other quick tests anyone wants to see before we take the CPE down? Travis Microserv WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 update
I get 10 ms on every packet every time with no loss. I am using Redline with non-real time polling. Scriv On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com wrote: What QOS are you using on that conenction? Berst effort? Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 1:39 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 update Hi, Ok... we mounted the base station yesterday and put up the CPE at our office this morning. It's a 7 mile shot, and we have a -77 RSSI running at 16QAM. We are able to get up to 6Mbps x 6Mbps right now (can't do more because the base station has a limit of 6Mbps per CPE set right now). Here is my biggest complaint with the bandwidth/speed/latency. The BEST possible latency we can get is 35ms. This is with absolutely no traffic, and just a normal Windows XP ping. This is not acceptable for this type of equipment. I know people have talked about Redline being about the same. Any other quick tests anyone wants to see before we take the CPE down? Travis Microserv WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 update
We tried them all... best effort, non-polling real time, and polling real time. All the same latency. We are also using 5ms frame and 1/8 carrier. Travis Gino Villarini wrote: What QOS are you using on that conenction? Berst effort? Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 1:39 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 update Hi, Ok... we mounted the base station yesterday and put up the CPE at our office this morning. It's a 7 mile shot, and we have a -77 RSSI running at 16QAM. We are able to get up to 6Mbps x 6Mbps right now (can't do more because the base station has a limit of 6Mbps per CPE set right now). Here is my biggest complaint with the bandwidth/speed/latency. The BEST possible latency we can get is 35ms. This is with absolutely no traffic, and just a normal Windows XP ping. This is not acceptable for this type of equipment. I know people have talked about Redline being about the same. Any other quick tests anyone wants to see before we take the CPE down? Travis Microserv WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 update
Switch to 1/4 carrier and 10 ms. I bet it clears up. Scriv On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net wrote: We tried them all... best effort, non-polling real time, and polling real time. All the same latency. We are also using 5ms frame and 1/8 carrier. Travis Gino Villarini wrote: What QOS are you using on that conenction? Berst effort? Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 1:39 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 update Hi, Ok... we mounted the base station yesterday and put up the CPE at our office this morning. It's a 7 mile shot, and we have a -77 RSSI running at 16QAM. We are able to get up to 6Mbps x 6Mbps right now (can't do more because the base station has a limit of 6Mbps per CPE set right now). Here is my biggest complaint with the bandwidth/speed/latency. The BEST possible latency we can get is 35ms. This is with absolutely no traffic, and just a normal Windows XP ping. This is not acceptable for this type of equipment. I know people have talked about Redline being about the same. Any other quick tests anyone wants to see before we take the CPE down? Travis Microserv WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
Bring out your credit card and go get one. Run you a wooping $260 and take you about 10min to do. ;) /Eje Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -Original Message- From: 3-dB Networks wi...@3-db.net Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:04:18 To: 'WISPA General List'wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 I don't have a license to do it with :-) Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 10:00 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 This is easy to confirm, just go ahead an register a base on a know site Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of 3-dB Networks Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Not sure how I can prove it... being that I didn't actually go through this but its what one of our customers told us (and they are not on the list). Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:42 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 I have always assumed multiple operators could register the same site too. Though I was skeptical (and remain so), Remi was really emphatic that the same site could not be registered and he mentioned that the Part 90 rule has some language that prevents multiple registrations. Like you, I'd need proof. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:29 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Hi, We are going to need specifics on this... because this is NOT what the FCC has said would happen nor is it what other people (at ISPCon) have said. There is another story of a telco that owns several of the ground stations that prevent others from registering 3.65 in that area... I wonder if those stories are getting mixed together? Travis 3-dB Networks wrote: Patrick, Respectfully I have been told the exact opposite by a WISP that was going to do a large 3.65 deployment, except the local teleco registered all of the high ground in the area preventing them from registering their own sites. The teleco has no intention of deploying the gear, so now they are in a heck of a problem. Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:22 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Hi Travis, I wish I had specifics, but I don't have anything other than an anecdotal story told to me by Redline when I was at a conference. I had always been under the impression an operator could register for the same locations. Patrick From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Patrick, Could you please share the exact information about the FCC rejecting applications for the same tower? At ISPCon a month ago, there were several people there that had deployed 3.65 and had even registered on the same tower as other 3.65 people and the applications went through just fine. I think you are giving people the impression that if they are first to the tower, they get entire use. This is NOT going to be the case. Travis Microserv Patrick Leary wrote: I'll chime in with a few comments: I admit to having been frustrated by the requirements in the 3.65 GHz ruling by the ambiguity of the cooperation requirements and for sure there are no first in rights. However, what I am seeing thus far in practice is that first movers do enjoy a meaningful advantage in their markets. Since WiMAX does represent a more
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
LOL but why would I... I'm not a WISP so I'll never deploy gear. Maybe it impresses girls ;-) Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of e...@wisp-router.com Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 11:12 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Bring out your credit card and go get one. Run you a wooping $260 and take you about 10min to do. ;) /Eje Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -Original Message- From: 3-dB Networks wi...@3-db.net Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:04:18 To: 'WISPA General List'wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 I don't have a license to do it with :-) Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 10:00 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 This is easy to confirm, just go ahead an register a base on a know site Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of 3-dB Networks Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Not sure how I can prove it... being that I didn't actually go through this but its what one of our customers told us (and they are not on the list). Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:42 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 I have always assumed multiple operators could register the same site too. Though I was skeptical (and remain so), Remi was really emphatic that the same site could not be registered and he mentioned that the Part 90 rule has some language that prevents multiple registrations. Like you, I'd need proof. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:29 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Hi, We are going to need specifics on this... because this is NOT what the FCC has said would happen nor is it what other people (at ISPCon) have said. There is another story of a telco that owns several of the ground stations that prevent others from registering 3.65 in that area... I wonder if those stories are getting mixed together? Travis 3-dB Networks wrote: Patrick, Respectfully I have been told the exact opposite by a WISP that was going to do a large 3.65 deployment, except the local teleco registered all of the high ground in the area preventing them from registering their own sites. The teleco has no intention of deploying the gear, so now they are in a heck of a problem. Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:22 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Hi Travis, I wish I had specifics, but I don't have anything other than an anecdotal story told to me by Redline when I was at a conference. I had always been under the impression an operator could register for the same locations. Patrick From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Patrick, Could you please share the exact information about the FCC rejecting applications for the same tower? At ISPCon a month ago, there were several people there that had deployed 3.65 and had even registered on the same tower as other 3.65 people and the applications went through just fine. I think you are giving people the impression that if they are first to the tower, they get entire use. This is NOT going to be the case. Travis Microserv Patrick Leary wrote: I'll chime in with a few comments: I admit to having been frustrated
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
I have a license and registered site. I'm about to find out exactly how the FCC intends to deal with this. The site owner is a bandwidth provider, and they signed a frequency coordination agreement with someone else, but I got my license and site first. The other' guy is objecting to my using a full spectrum radio there . I don't know if he has tried to register yet or not. insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:00 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 This is easy to confirm, just go ahead an register a base on a know site Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of 3-dB Networks Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Not sure how I can prove it... being that I didn't actually go through this but its what one of our customers told us (and they are not on the list). Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:42 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 I have always assumed multiple operators could register the same site too. Though I was skeptical (and remain so), Remi was really emphatic that the same site could not be registered and he mentioned that the Part 90 rule has some language that prevents multiple registrations. Like you, I'd need proof. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:29 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Hi, We are going to need specifics on this... because this is NOT what the FCC has said would happen nor is it what other people (at ISPCon) have said. There is another story of a telco that owns several of the ground stations that prevent others from registering 3.65 in that area... I wonder if those stories are getting mixed together? Travis 3-dB Networks wrote: Patrick, Respectfully I have been told the exact opposite by a WISP that was going to do a large 3.65 deployment, except the local teleco registered all of the high ground in the area preventing them from registering their own sites. The teleco has no intention of deploying the gear, so now they are in a heck of a problem. Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:22 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Hi Travis, I wish I had specifics, but I don't have anything other than an anecdotal story told to me by Redline when I was at a conference. I had always been under the impression an operator could register for the same locations. Patrick From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Patrick, Could you please share the exact information about the FCC rejecting applications for the same tower? At ISPCon a month ago, there were several people there that had deployed 3.65 and had even registered on the same tower as other 3.65 people and the applications went through just fine. I think you are giving people the impression that if they are first to the tower, they get entire use. This is NOT going to be the case. Travis Microserv Patrick Leary wrote: I'll chime in with a few comments: I admit to having been frustrated by the requirements in the 3.65 GHz ruling by the ambiguity of the cooperation requirements and for sure there are no first in rights. However, what I am seeing thus far in practice is that first movers do enjoy a meaningful advantage in their markets. Since WiMAX does represent a more significant CAPEX investment on infrastructure, operators are reluctant to deploy aggressively in a market where several operators are already live. Second, since the rule does not define neither the nature nor extent of the cooperation, the first in operators seem to have a leg up with the next in folks needing to work around them to some extent. At a minimum, cooperation as it relates to 3.65 GHz is a boon for the lawyer class and since most WISPs are loathe to deploy an attorney to battle the first in's attorney, many opt to find greener pastures. Also, according to me Redline friends, we are learning
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 update
its all part of how the Wimax MAC works ..., Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 7:53 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 update Actually the ping times went to 60ms with those changes. Travis John Scrivner wrote: Switch to 1/4 carrier and 10 ms. I bet it clears up. Scriv On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net mailto:t...@ida.net wrote: We tried them all... best effort, non-polling real time, and polling real time. All the same latency. We are also using 5ms frame and 1/8 carrier. Travis Gino Villarini wrote: What QOS are you using on that conenction? Berst effort? Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 1:39 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 update Hi, Ok... we mounted the base station yesterday and put up the CPE at our office this morning. It's a 7 mile shot, and we have a -77 RSSI running at 16QAM. We are able to get up to 6Mbps x 6Mbps right now (can't do more because the base station has a limit of 6Mbps per CPE set right now). Here is my biggest complaint with the bandwidth/speed/latency. The BEST possible latency we can get is 35ms. This is with absolutely no traffic, and just a normal Windows XP ping. This is not acceptable for this type of equipment. I know people have talked about Redline being about the same. Any other quick tests anyone wants to see before we take the CPE down? Travis Microserv WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 update
So did you get your latency down from 30-40ms? I remember you were having the same problem a few weeks ago with the Redline stuff? Travis Gino Villarini wrote: its all part of how the Wimax MAC works ..., Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 7:53 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 update Actually the ping times went to 60ms with those changes. Travis John Scrivner wrote: Switch to 1/4 carrier and 10 ms. I bet it clears up. Scriv On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net mailto:t...@ida.net wrote: We tried them all... best effort, non-polling real time, and polling real time. All the same latency. We are also using 5ms frame and 1/8 carrier. Travis Gino Villarini wrote: What QOS are you using on that conenction? Berst effort? Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 1:39 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 update Hi, Ok... we mounted the base station yesterday and put up the CPE at our office this morning. It's a 7 mile shot, and we have a -77 RSSI running at 16QAM. We are able to get up to 6Mbps x 6Mbps right now (can't do more because the base station has a limit of 6Mbps per CPE set right now). Here is my biggest complaint with the bandwidth/speed/latency. The BEST possible latency we can get is 35ms. This is with absolutely no traffic, and just a normal Windows XP ping. This is not acceptable for this type of equipment. I know people have talked about Redline being about the same. Any other quick tests anyone wants to see before we take the CPE down? Travis Microserv WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
On to the CPE: This is one of the worst designs of a CPE that I have ever seen. The entire unit is made by Tranzeo and looks just like their normal 2.4 CPE. It has the bar of lights on the top showing Power, LAN, RSSI, etc. The mounting bracket is the L bracket that bolts to the back and has a U-bolt and clamp to hook to the pipe. The biggest problem is how the ethernet cable connects. It has the white cover plate that goes over the RJ-45 connector that has to be bolted to the back of the radio... the problem is, the pass-thru connector is not big enough to allow an already crimped RJ-45 cable to pass thru... meaning, you have to run the cable thru the white plastic thing, then crimp it, then plug it in, and then screw the nuts down holding the white cover. If you ever have to replace the radio with something different, you have to cut the cable and then re-crimp. Also, I can guarantee that water is going to get into the RJ-45 as it is on the back of the radio and the water will always be trying to get into the white cover and then will just flow right into the RJ-45. I have attached a picture that is 99% the same as this unit (except this unit is smaller than the picture). The other issue is the PoE injector that comes with the unit. This is the worst PoE that I have ever seen. I don't understand why they can't use a grounded PoE that doesn't require a separate ground wire. Use the ground built into the electrical wiring that is already there (like the PacWireless PoE units). Attached is a picture of the PoE that was supplied. I've been using the Tranzeo units for at least 3 years now. They are all too often mounted right under the eve of the house. So far no water issues. As for the POE ground wire. Ever open one up and look at what that ground wire plugs into? I don't even bother with them as they don't go anywhere that connects to the unit outside! sigh marlon WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
Don't I remember that there was a lot of hype about interoperability? That's why many of us still stick to the old a/b/g stuff. We hate the idea of getting orphaned. insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: Drew Lentz d...@drewlentz.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org; Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 10:34 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 From what I understood from the guys at Tranzeo, just because they are manufactured both by Tranzeo and they are the same freq, there are hooks into all of the CPEs so that they are not cross-compatible. This might need clarification, but I was sure that this was the case in speaking with their guys. In other words, the Tranzeo / Redline CPEs work only with Redline, the Tranzeo / Vecima CPEs work only with Vecima. The Tranzeo CPEs direct from Tranzeo will not work with either .. This was done so that end-users don't shop around to piece together the system. I might be wrong, but I remember when I heard this described I did the whole dog tilting it's head sideways thing ... -drew On 12/13/08 5:32 PM, Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com wrote: it uses 802.03af PS ... My point was that you could use the low cost Vecima Bases with these CPEs ... or stick with el cheapo tranzeo units Would you pay extra $50 for a quality cpe? I'll do Definetly Tranzeo does not manufacture this unit Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 7:21 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 U pricing is WAY, WAY different. Redline AP's are around $10k Vecima AP's are around $4k Redline CPE's are $300 each (even in 250 quantity) Vecima CPE's are less than $249 And, I was told Tranzeo is making Redline's CPE as well? Could you send a picture of the Redline CPE? Travis Microserv Gino Villarini wrote: iirc one vendor told me the recline CPe could talk with the Vecima base The redline units are top notch quality construction, no tranzeo mickey mouse stuff. Afaik pricing is not much diferent Gino Sent from my Motorola Startac... On Dec 13, 2008, at 2:37 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net mailto:t...@ida.net wrote: Hi, We received our Vecima trial kit (one AP and five CPE) on Thursday afternoon. We have not yet put it on a tower, as there were several issues with their software on the AP... but here's some info thus far: The base station is quite large. It measures approximately 14 inches tall x 8 inches wide x 6 inches thick. It weighs about 25 pounds (seriously). It has an RJ-45 ethernet connector and an N-male connector on the bottom. (I was lead to believe they had omni, 90 degree, 120 degree and connectorized versions, and I requested the 120 unit, but instead got this with an LMR jumper and an MTI 120 antenna). We began by getting into the AP and making some normal changes (downlink was set to 50%, so we changed it to 70%). Also the center frequency was set to 3.410 so we changed that to 3.650. We also changed to 7mhz channel size. We then applied and rebooted... and then we could no longer get into the radio configuration page (where we had just made all those changes). So we did a factory reset and tried again. Same thing. We opened a trouble ticket with Vecima the next morning, and they were able to reproduce the problem in their lab. Then about 3 hours later, another tech called back and told us we needed to upgrade the firmware (even though the first tech said we were running the latest). We upgraded and that fixed the problem... but then we had a new problem. The Allowed MAC address file somehow got corrupted... so they had to SSH into the base station and fix that file. (By the way, this AP is just running Linux 2.6.14 kernel). We were now able to make a connection to one of the CPE (after setting up the service classifiers, service flows, and adding a service flow to this MAC address). Making a link on our test bench (10 feet away), we had a -55ish signal... however, the ping times and speeds were terrible (2000ms and at the most 2Mbps). I am thinking it was because this is running OFDM and in close proximity, the signals bounce all over. Last, all three techs that I talked to at Vecima asked Do you have an NMS (network management server)? and I had to continually say no and then they would say oh... I don't know how to do this manually. One of the reasons we were testing this solution is that it did not require their NMS to function... however, even their tech support is pretty limited if you don't have it. Their NMS server is about $5,000
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
That was the reason I went with 802.11 on Tranzeo in the first place. Yeah there are (insert 802.11 issues here) but at least I have the freedom to shop around. I wish vendors would use ingenuity and value rather than silly lock-ins to keep you. ryan (writing this on an OSX machine... I pay more for more! Take heed vendors!) On Dec 14, 2008, at 12:17 AM, rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: Don't I remember that there was a lot of hype about interoperability? That's why many of us still stick to the old a/b/g stuff. We hate the idea of getting orphaned. insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: Drew Lentz d...@drewlentz.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org; Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 10:34 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 From what I understood from the guys at Tranzeo, just because they are manufactured both by Tranzeo and they are the same freq, there are hooks into all of the CPEs so that they are not cross-compatible. This might need clarification, but I was sure that this was the case in speaking with their guys. In other words, the Tranzeo / Redline CPEs work only with Redline, the Tranzeo / Vecima CPEs work only with Vecima. The Tranzeo CPEs direct from Tranzeo will not work with either .. This was done so that end- users don't shop around to piece together the system. I might be wrong, but I remember when I heard this described I did the whole dog tilting it's head sideways thing ... -drew On 12/13/08 5:32 PM, Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com wrote: it uses 802.03af PS ... My point was that you could use the low cost Vecima Bases with these CPEs ... or stick with el cheapo tranzeo units Would you pay extra $50 for a quality cpe? I'll do Definetly Tranzeo does not manufacture this unit Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 7:21 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 U pricing is WAY, WAY different. Redline AP's are around $10k Vecima AP's are around $4k Redline CPE's are $300 each (even in 250 quantity) Vecima CPE's are less than $249 And, I was told Tranzeo is making Redline's CPE as well? Could you send a picture of the Redline CPE? Travis Microserv Gino Villarini wrote: iirc one vendor told me the recline CPe could talk with the Vecima base The redline units are top notch quality construction, no tranzeo mickey mouse stuff. Afaik pricing is not much diferent Gino Sent from my Motorola Startac... On Dec 13, 2008, at 2:37 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net mailto:t...@ida.net wrote: Hi, We received our Vecima trial kit (one AP and five CPE) on Thursday afternoon. We have not yet put it on a tower, as there were several issues with their software on the AP... but here's some info thus far: The base station is quite large. It measures approximately 14 inches tall x 8 inches wide x 6 inches thick. It weighs about 25 pounds (seriously). It has an RJ-45 ethernet connector and an N-male connector on the bottom. (I was lead to believe they had omni, 90 degree, 120 degree and connectorized versions, and I requested the 120 unit, but instead got this with an LMR jumper and an MTI 120 antenna). We began by getting into the AP and making some normal changes (downlink was set to 50%, so we changed it to 70%). Also the center frequency was set to 3.410 so we changed that to 3.650. We also changed to 7mhz channel size. We then applied and rebooted... and then we could no longer get into the radio configuration page (where we had just made all those changes). So we did a factory reset and tried again. Same thing. We opened a trouble ticket with Vecima the next morning, and they were able to reproduce the problem in their lab. Then about 3 hours later, another tech called back and told us we needed to upgrade the firmware (even though the first tech said we were running the latest). We upgraded and that fixed the problem... but then we had a new problem. The Allowed MAC address file somehow got corrupted... so they had to SSH into the base station and fix that file. (By the way, this AP is just running Linux 2.6.14 kernel). We were now able to make a connection to one of the CPE (after setting up the service classifiers, service flows, and adding a service flow to this MAC address). Making a link on our test bench (10 feet away), we had a -55ish signal... however, the ping times and speeds were terrible (2000ms and at the most 2Mbps). I am thinking it was because this is running OFDM and in close proximity, the signals bounce all
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
Everyone praised WiMAX because it would be cross compatible. Welp, $10k AP later, you're still stuck with a proprietary system, you just have less money. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Drew Lentz d...@drewlentz.com Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 12:34 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org; Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 From what I understood from the guys at Tranzeo, just because they are manufactured both by Tranzeo and they are the same freq, there are hooks into all of the CPEs so that they are not cross-compatible. This might need clarification, but I was sure that this was the case in speaking with their guys. In other words, the Tranzeo / Redline CPEs work only with Redline, the Tranzeo / Vecima CPEs work only with Vecima. The Tranzeo CPEs direct from Tranzeo will not work with either .. This was done so that end-users don't shop around to piece together the system. I might be wrong, but I remember when I heard this described I did the whole dog tilting it's head sideways thing ... -drew On 12/13/08 5:32 PM, Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com wrote: it uses 802.03af PS ... My point was that you could use the low cost Vecima Bases with these CPEs ... or stick with el cheapo tranzeo units Would you pay extra $50 for a quality cpe? I'll do Definetly Tranzeo does not manufacture this unit Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 7:21 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 U pricing is WAY, WAY different. Redline AP's are around $10k Vecima AP's are around $4k Redline CPE's are $300 each (even in 250 quantity) Vecima CPE's are less than $249 And, I was told Tranzeo is making Redline's CPE as well? Could you send a picture of the Redline CPE? Travis Microserv Gino Villarini wrote: iirc one vendor told me the recline CPe could talk with the Vecima base The redline units are top notch quality construction, no tranzeo mickey mouse stuff. Afaik pricing is not much diferent Gino Sent from my Motorola Startac... On Dec 13, 2008, at 2:37 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net mailto:t...@ida.net wrote: Hi, We received our Vecima trial kit (one AP and five CPE) on Thursday afternoon. We have not yet put it on a tower, as there were several issues with their software on the AP... but here's some info thus far: The base station is quite large. It measures approximately 14 inches tall x 8 inches wide x 6 inches thick. It weighs about 25 pounds (seriously). It has an RJ-45 ethernet connector and an N-male connector on the bottom. (I was lead to believe they had omni, 90 degree, 120 degree and connectorized versions, and I requested the 120 unit, but instead got this with an LMR jumper and an MTI 120 antenna). We began by getting into the AP and making some normal changes (downlink was set to 50%, so we changed it to 70%). Also the center frequency was set to 3.410 so we changed that to 3.650. We also changed to 7mhz channel size. We then applied and rebooted... and then we could no longer get into the radio configuration page (where we had just made all those changes). So we did a factory reset and tried again. Same thing. We opened a trouble ticket with Vecima the next morning, and they were able to reproduce the problem in their lab. Then about 3 hours later, another tech called back and told us we needed to upgrade the firmware (even though the first tech said we were running the latest). We upgraded and that fixed the problem... but then we had a new problem. The Allowed MAC address file somehow got corrupted... so they had to SSH into the base station and fix that file. (By the way, this AP is just running Linux 2.6.14 kernel). We were now able to make a connection to one of the CPE (after setting up the service classifiers, service flows, and adding a service flow to this MAC address). Making a link on our test bench (10 feet away), we had a -55ish signal... however, the ping times and speeds were terrible (2000ms and at the most 2Mbps). I am thinking it was because this is running OFDM and in close proximity, the signals bounce all over. Last, all three techs that I talked to at Vecima asked Do you have an NMS (network management server)? and I had to continually say no and then they would say oh... I don't know how to do this manually. One of the reasons we were testing this solution is that it did not require their NMS to function... however, even their tech support is pretty limited if you don't have it. Their NMS server is about
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: Don't I remember that there was a lot of hype about interoperability? That's why many of us still stick to the old a/b/g stuff. We hate the idea of getting orphaned. Right on! Some of us HAVE been orphaned! WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
So this stuff then is not really WiMAX, it;s just another proprietary system, right? George Blair Davis wrote: rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: Don't I remember that there was a lot of hype about interoperability? That's why many of us still stick to the old a/b/g stuff. We hate the idea of getting orphaned. Right on! Some of us HAVE been orphaned! WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
Well its uses Wimax MAC, but ists not Wimax Forum Certified so the manufactures don't have to comply with interoperability Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 1:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 So this stuff then is not really WiMAX, it;s just another proprietary system, right? George Blair Davis wrote: rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: Don't I remember that there was a lot of hype about interoperability? That's why many of us still stick to the old a/b/g stuff. We hate the idea of getting orphaned. Right on! Some of us HAVE been orphaned! -- -- -- -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
We are going to test this for ourselves but it is our understanding that all 3.65 WiMAX Forum Certified equipment is interoperable but only to a certain extent. From what I understand, Redline Base Stations and Tranzeo CPE will work together but only on a best effort basis. All QoS functionality is proprietary. If you are just providing data services that should not be an issue though. Once again, this is theory. I do not know of anyone who has actually tried out a system using Redline Base Stations and another manufacturer's CPE. -Jeff General Manager CTI (773) 667-4585 x2509 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 11:39 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Well its uses Wimax MAC, but ists not Wimax Forum Certified so the manufactures don't have to comply with interoperability Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 1:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 So this stuff then is not really WiMAX, it;s just another proprietary system, right? George Blair Davis wrote: rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: Don't I remember that there was a lot of hype about interoperability? That's why many of us still stick to the old a/b/g stuff. We hate the idea of getting orphaned. Right on! Some of us HAVE been orphaned! -- -- -- -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone at 630-344-1586. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
Honestly, it would seem the best solution at this time would be to use the Vecima Base stations with Redline CPE. :) Travis Microserv Jeff Ehman wrote: We are going to test this for ourselves but it is our understanding that all 3.65 WiMAX Forum Certified equipment is interoperable but only to a certain extent. From what I understand, Redline Base Stations and Tranzeo CPE will work together but only on a "best effort" basis. All QoS functionality is proprietary. If you are just providing data services that should not be an issue though. Once again, this is theory. I do not know of anyone who has actually tried out a system using Redline Base Stations and another manufacturer's CPE. -Jeff General Manager CTI (773) 667-4585 x2509 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 11:39 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Well its uses Wimax MAC, but ists not Wimax Forum Certified so the manufactures don't have to comply with interoperability Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 1:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 So this stuff then is not really WiMAX, it;s just another proprietary system, right? George Blair Davis wrote: rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: Don't I remember that there was a lot of hype about interoperability? That's why many of us still stick to the old a/b/g stuff. We hate the idea of getting orphaned. Right on! Some of us HAVE been orphaned! -- -- -- -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone at 630-344-1586. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
Jeff AFAIK there is no Wimax Forum 3.65 profile ... Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Ehman Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 1:55 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 We are going to test this for ourselves but it is our understanding that all 3.65 WiMAX Forum Certified equipment is interoperable but only to a certain extent. From what I understand, Redline Base Stations and Tranzeo CPE will work together but only on a best effort basis. All QoS functionality is proprietary. If you are just providing data services that should not be an issue though. Once again, this is theory. I do not know of anyone who has actually tried out a system using Redline Base Stations and another manufacturer's CPE. -Jeff General Manager CTI (773) 667-4585 x2509 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 11:39 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Well its uses Wimax MAC, but ists not Wimax Forum Certified so the manufactures don't have to comply with interoperability Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 1:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 So this stuff then is not really WiMAX, it;s just another proprietary system, right? George Blair Davis wrote: rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: Don't I remember that there was a lot of hype about interoperability? That's why many of us still stick to the old a/b/g stuff. We hate the idea of getting orphaned. Right on! Some of us HAVE been orphaned! -- -- -- -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone at 630-344-1586. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
It is the real WiMAX, not the hype of 70 megabits at 70 miles with any vendor you choose. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: George Rogato wi...@oregonfast.net Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 11:34 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 So this stuff then is not really WiMAX, it;s just another proprietary system, right? George Blair Davis wrote: rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: Don't I remember that there was a lot of hype about interoperability? That's why many of us still stick to the old a/b/g stuff. We hate the idea of getting orphaned. Right on! Some of us HAVE been orphaned! WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
I was told that Redlines's WiMax solution would be interoperable - but that was a salesmen speaking. On 12/14/08, Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com wrote: Well its uses Wimax MAC, but ists not Wimax Forum Certified so the manufactures don't have to comply with interoperability Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 1:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 So this stuff then is not really WiMAX, it;s just another proprietary system, right? George Blair Davis wrote: rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: Don't I remember that there was a lot of hype about interoperability? That's why many of us still stick to the old a/b/g stuff. We hate the idea of getting orphaned. Right on! Some of us HAVE been orphaned! -- -- -- -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. --- Henry Spencer WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
To add to Jeff point...WiMAX certification interoperability is limited to a lowest common denominator -- for example, looking at the MAC, interoperability is only guaranteed at the BE level (so unless there's some level of AP / CPE manufacturer cooperation, most of those nifty QoS features disappear) -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Ehman Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 11:55 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 We are going to test this for ourselves but it is our understanding that all 3.65 WiMAX Forum Certified equipment is interoperable but only to a certain extent. From what I understand, Redline Base Stations and Tranzeo CPE will work together but only on a best effort basis. All QoS functionality is proprietary. If you are just providing data services that should not be an issue though. Once again, this is theory. I do not know of anyone who has actually tried out a system using Redline Base Stations and another manufacturer's CPE. -Jeff General Manager CTI (773) 667-4585 x2509 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 11:39 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Well its uses Wimax MAC, but ists not Wimax Forum Certified so the manufactures don't have to comply with interoperability Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 1:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 So this stuff then is not really WiMAX, it;s just another proprietary system, right? George Blair Davis wrote: rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: Don't I remember that there was a lot of hype about interoperability? That's why many of us still stick to the old a/b/g stuff. We hate the idea of getting orphaned. Right on! Some of us HAVE been orphaned! -- -- -- -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone at 630-344-1586. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone at 630-344-1586
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
I was told that Redlines's WiMax solution would be interoperable - but that was a salesmen speaking. They are... At a base level -Charles This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone at 630-344-1586. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
My thoughts inline below: On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net wrote: U pricing is WAY, WAY different. Redline AP's are around $10k Vecima AP's are around $4k Redline has an FCC approved system with 3 - 120 degree sectors with a 3-way splitter which allows for full 360 degree coverage now with one sector controller with upgrade path for more sector controllers as your needs increase over time. Redline supports uplink sub-channelization which adds about 15 db of increased receive sensitivity to your CPE to base station link. I find the cost is justified for the Redline system and I have one online that I am very happy with. I am moving my leased line connections to WiMax with better speeds and erquivalent reliability. The ROI for this base station ist less than 2.5 years now and will improve as I add more customers. I feel very satisfied with the Redline system and am confident we will add more Redline bases in the future. Redline CPE's are $300 each (even in 250 quantity) Vecima CPE's are less than $249 Redline CPEs are built like a tank. They have the Intel WiMax Ruby chipset (the best available at any price). Future migration to 802.16e for this CPE is a firmware flash. It is true that you have to buy 72 radios (not 250) to get the $300 price point. They are well worth the money. I take a Redline CPE in with me on sales calls. The quality helps me sell WiMax.. It is that nice of a piece. It is the best quality CPE device I have used. It is very similar to the quality look and feel of the Alvarion VL CPE radios. And, I was told Tranzeo is making Redline's CPE as well? Could you send a picture of the Redline CPE? This is not true at all. Tranzeo and Redline CPEs are night and day different from one another. The quality of the Redline CPE was a big part of my decision to choose Redline as our WiMax platform. Nothing touches the Intel Ruby chipset. It is the best going. Scriv WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
John, What are your thoughts about using the 3.65ghz band that has no capabilities to handle any type of noise rejection? One of my big concerns with 3.65ghz is spending a lot of money on base stations, NMS, etc. and then having someone purchase a $3,000 LigoWave 3.65 point to point link and shut my system down completely. I believe this to be a _very_ real concern in this space. I know the Vecima equipment is just a frequency change from their 3.5ghz equipment. I know equipment in that band has nothing to deal with noise, because they are licensed frequencies and therefore don't need to worry about interference. Do you have concerns about this? The FCC has already said that problems will need to be "worked out", and that they are not going to step in and do anything. It will NOT be a first come first serve basis as many believe. Thoughts? Comments? Travis Microserv John Scrivner wrote: My thoughts inline below: On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net wrote: U pricing is WAY, WAY different. Redline AP's are around $10k Vecima AP's are around $4k Redline has an FCC approved system with 3 - 120 degree sectors with a 3-way splitter which allows for full 360 degree coverage now with one sector controller with upgrade path for more sector controllers as your needs increase over time. Redline supports uplink sub-channelization which adds about 15 db of increased receive sensitivity to your CPE to base station link. I find the cost is justified for the Redline system and I have one online that I am very happy with. I am moving my leased line connections to WiMax with better speeds and erquivalent reliability. The ROI for this base station ist less than 2.5 years now and will improve as I add more customers. I feel very satisfied with the Redline system and am confident we will add more Redline bases in the future. Redline CPE's are $300 each (even in 250 quantity) Vecima CPE's are less than $249 Redline CPEs are built like a tank. They have the Intel WiMax Ruby chipset (the best available at any price). Future migration to 802.16e for this CPE is a firmware flash. It is true that you have to buy 72 radios (not 250) to get the $300 price point. They are well worth the money. I take a Redline CPE in with me on sales calls. The quality helps me sell WiMax.. It is that nice of a piece. It is the best quality CPE device I have used. It is very similar to the quality look and feel of the Alvarion VL CPE radios. And, I was told Tranzeo is making Redline's CPE as well? Could you send a picture of the Redline CPE? This is not true at all. Tranzeo and Redline CPEs are night and day different from one another. The quality of the Redline CPE was a big part of my decision to choose Redline as our WiMax platform. Nothing touches the Intel Ruby chipset. It is the best going. Scriv WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
I consider my reply to be of enough value that I am sending out on the WISPA members list. You will see my reply there. Scriv On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:28 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net wrote: John, What are your thoughts about using the 3.65ghz band that has no capabilities to handle any type of noise rejection? One of my big concerns with 3.65ghz is spending a lot of money on base stations, NMS, etc. and then having someone purchase a $3,000 LigoWave 3.65 point to point link and shut my system down completely. I believe this to be a _very_ real concern in this space. I know the Vecima equipment is just a frequency change from their 3.5ghz equipment. I know equipment in that band has nothing to deal with noise, because they are licensed frequencies and therefore don't need to worry about interference. Do you have concerns about this? The FCC has already said that problems will need to be worked out, and that they are not going to step in and do anything. It will NOT be a first come first serve basis as many believe. Thoughts? Comments? Travis Microserv John Scrivner wrote: My thoughts inline below: On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net t...@ida.net wrote: U pricing is WAY, WAY different. Redline AP's are around $10k Vecima AP's are around $4k Redline has an FCC approved system with 3 - 120 degree sectors with a 3-way splitter which allows for full 360 degree coverage now with one sector controller with upgrade path for more sector controllers as your needs increase over time. Redline supports uplink sub-channelization which adds about 15 db of increased receive sensitivity to your CPE to base station link. I find the cost is justified for the Redline system and I have one online that I am very happy with. I am moving my leased line connections to WiMax with better speeds and erquivalent reliability. The ROI for this base station ist less than 2.5 years now and will improve as I add more customers. I feel very satisfied with the Redline system and am confident we will add more Redline bases in the future. Redline CPE's are $300 each (even in 250 quantity) Vecima CPE's are less than $249 Redline CPEs are built like a tank. They have the Intel WiMax Ruby chipset (the best available at any price). Future migration to 802.16e for this CPE is a firmware flash. It is true that you have to buy 72 radios (not 250) to get the $300 price point. They are well worth the money. I take a Redline CPE in with me on sales calls. The quality helps me sell WiMax.. It is that nice of a piece. It is the best quality CPE device I have used. It is very similar to the quality look and feel of the Alvarion VL CPE radios. And, I was told Tranzeo is making Redline's CPE as well? Could you send a picture of the Redline CPE? This is not true at all. Tranzeo and Redline CPEs are night and day different from one another. The quality of the Redline CPE was a big part of my decision to choose Redline as our WiMax platform. Nothing touches the Intel Ruby chipset. It is the best going. Scriv WISPA Wants You! Join today!http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
Travis, You've never had the pleasure of dealing with Tranzeo's ethernet connector? They insist this is the most waterproof / weatherproof way they've found. Even so, it is a pain in the rear, I agree. Looking forward to seeing more test results. Thanks for doing the product beta test and development for us :) Randy Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, We received our Vecima trial kit (one AP and five CPE) on Thursday afternoon. We have not yet put it on a tower, as there were several issues with their software on the AP... but here's some info thus far: The base station is quite large. It measures approximately 14 inches tall x 8 inches wide x 6 inches thick. It weighs about 25 pounds (seriously). It has an RJ-45 ethernet connector and an N-male connector on the bottom. (I was lead to believe they had omni, 90 degree, 120 degree and connectorized versions, and I requested the 120 unit, but instead got this with an LMR jumper and an MTI 120 antenna). We began by getting into the AP and making some normal changes (downlink was set to 50%, so we changed it to 70%). Also the center frequency was set to 3.410 so we changed that to 3.650. We also changed to 7mhz channel size. We then applied and rebooted... and then we could no longer get into the radio configuration page (where we had just made all those changes). So we did a factory reset and tried again. Same thing. We opened a trouble ticket with Vecima the next morning, and they were able to reproduce the problem in their lab. Then about 3 hours later, another tech called back and told us we needed to upgrade the firmware (even though the first tech said we were running the latest). We upgraded and that fixed the problem... but then we had a new problem. The Allowed MAC address file somehow got corrupted... so they had to SSH into the base station and fix that file. (By the way, this AP is just running Linux 2.6.14 kernel). We were now able to make a connection to one of the CPE (after setting up the service classifiers, service flows, and adding a service flow to this MAC address). Making a link on our test bench (10 feet away), we had a -55ish signal... however, the ping times and speeds were terrible (2000ms and at the most 2Mbps). I am thinking it was because this is running OFDM and in close proximity, the signals bounce all over. Last, all three techs that I talked to at Vecima asked Do you have an NMS (network management server)? and I had to continually say no and then they would say oh... I don't know how to do this manually. One of the reasons we were testing this solution is that it did not require their NMS to function... however, even their tech support is pretty limited if you don't have it. Their NMS server is about $5,000 (but a single server will support an entire network, with unlimited AP's and CPE). On to the CPE: This is one of the worst designs of a CPE that I have ever seen. The entire unit is made by Tranzeo and looks just like their normal 2.4 CPE. It has the bar of lights on the top showing Power, LAN, RSSI, etc. The mounting bracket is the L bracket that bolts to the back and has a U-bolt and clamp to hook to the pipe. The biggest problem is how the ethernet cable connects. It has the white cover plate that goes over the RJ-45 connector that has to be bolted to the back of the radio... the problem is, the pass-thru connector is not big enough to allow an already crimped RJ-45 cable to pass thru... meaning, you have to run the cable thru the white plastic thing, then crimp it, then plug it in, and then screw the nuts down holding the white cover. If you ever have to replace the radio with something different, you have to cut the cable and then re-crimp. Also, I can guarantee that water is going to get into the RJ-45 as it is on the back of the radio and the water will always be trying to get into the white cover and then will just flow right into the RJ-45. I have attached a picture that is 99% the same as this unit (except this unit is smaller than the picture). The other issue is the PoE injector that comes with the unit. This is the worst PoE that I have ever seen. I don't understand why they can't use a grounded PoE that doesn't require a separate ground wire. Use the ground built into the electrical wiring that is already there (like the PacWireless PoE units). Attached is a picture of the PoE that was supplied. I will be testing the speeds and range this Monday (assuming the weather is better... we got 6 of snow and 40MPH winds last night). I will post more results as I have them. At this point, I am not really impressed with a $4,000 AP that's just running Linux. Travis Microserv WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
I have comments inline... At least for the Tranzeo Unit :) D. Ryan Spott rsp...@cspott.com On Dec 13, 2008, at 10:35 AM, Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, We received our Vecima trial kit (one AP and five CPE) on Thursday afternoon. We have not yet put it on a tower, as there were several issues with their software on the AP... but here's some info thus far: The base station is quite large. It measures approximately 14 inches tall x 8 inches wide x 6 inches thick. It weighs about 25 pounds (seriously). It has an RJ-45 ethernet connector and an N-male connector on the bottom. (I was lead to believe they had omni, 90 degree, 120 degree and connectorized versions, and I requested the 120 unit, but instead got this with an LMR jumper and an MTI 120 antenna). We began by getting into the AP and making some normal changes (downlink was set to 50%, so we changed it to 70%). Also the center frequency was set to 3.410 so we changed that to 3.650. We also changed to 7mhz channel size. We then applied and rebooted... and then we could no longer get into the radio configuration page (where we had just made all those changes). So we did a factory reset and tried again. Same thing. We opened a trouble ticket with Vecima the next morning, and they were able to reproduce the problem in their lab. Then about 3 hours later, another tech called back and told us we needed to upgrade the firmware (even though the first tech said we were running the latest). We upgraded and that fixed the problem... but then we had a new problem. The Allowed MAC address file somehow got corrupted... so they had to SSH into the base station and fix that file. (By the way, this AP is just running Linux 2.6.14 kernel). We were now able to make a connection to one of the CPE (after setting up the service classifiers, service flows, and adding a service flow to this MAC address). Making a link on our test bench (10 feet away), we had a -55ish signal... however, the ping times and speeds were terrible (2000ms and at the most 2Mbps). I am thinking it was because this is running OFDM and in close proximity, the signals bounce all over. Last, all three techs that I talked to at Vecima asked Do you have an NMS (network management server)? and I had to continually say no and then they would say oh... I don't know how to do this manually. One of the reasons we were testing this solution is that it did not require their NMS to function... however, even their tech support is pretty limited if you don't have it. Their NMS server is about $5,000 (but a single server will support an entire network, with unlimited AP's and CPE). On to the CPE: This is one of the worst designs of a CPE that I have ever seen. Eh, it's OK. Back when I started (3 years ago) it was a heck-of-a-lot better than the other inexpensive CPE that was out. It also passes my wife will a woman allow that on the house test. One of the CPE (not Tranzeo) that I looked at actually had a place duct tape here line in their instructions! The entire unit is made by Tranzeo and looks just like their normal 2.4 CPE. It has the bar of lights on the top showing Power, LAN, RSSI, etc. The mounting bracket is the L bracket that bolts to the back and has a U-bolt and clamp to hook to the pipe. Yes, all of their CPE is like this. They make one design and really stick to it. The picture you have on the left shows the old design. The new one has a set of screws holding it together. I like this newer design a little better. The biggest problem is how the ethernet cable connects. It has the white cover plate that goes over the RJ-45 connector that has to be bolted to the back of the radio... the problem is, the pass-thru connector is not big enough to allow an already crimped RJ-45 cable to pass thru... meaning, you have to run the cable thru the white plastic thing, then crimp it, then plug it in, and then screw the nuts down holding the white cover. I totally agree, this is a TOTAL pain in the A$$. How much more would it cost for a decent pass through connector.. uh.. pennies at volume. Get with it Tranzeo! Even the telcos have figured this out with regard to FIOS connections and the glands they go through. If you ever have to replace the radio with something different, you have to cut the cable and then re-crimp. Tranzeo says (fictitiously) Well, why would you want to replace that with anything but Tranzeo? *sigh* Also, I can guarantee that water is going to get into the RJ-45 as it is on the back of the radio and the water will always be trying to get into the white cover and then will just flow right into the RJ-45. I have attached a picture that is 99% the same as this unit (except this unit is smaller than the picture). Oh! you have the old SL2 looking module. Hopefully they have made that into a smooth cover. Here in
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
One comment regarding the bench testing of any radio. Too much signal is just as bad as too little signal because an overloaded receiver will create errors just like a receiver that doesn't get enough signal. When bench testing, I advise either placing the units several rooms apart (to benefit from the attenuation of the walls), turning the transmitter power down on both ends (whenever possible) or using attenuators (at least on one end) between antenna connector and antenna. jack Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, We received our Vecima "trial" kit (one AP and five CPE) on Thursday afternoon. We have not yet put it on a tower, as there were several issues with their software on the AP... but here's some info thus far: The base station is quite large. It measures approximately 14 inches tall x 8 inches wide x 6 inches thick. It weighs about 25 pounds (seriously). It has an RJ-45 ethernet connector and an N-male connector on the bottom. (I was lead to believe they had omni, 90 degree, 120 degree and connectorized versions, and I requested the 120 unit, but instead got this with an LMR jumper and an MTI 120 antenna). We began by getting into the AP and making some "normal" changes (downlink was set to 50%, so we changed it to 70%). Also the center frequency was set to 3.410 so we changed that to 3.650. We also changed to 7mhz channel size. We then applied and rebooted... and then we could no longer get into the "radio" configuration page (where we had just made all those changes). So we did a factory reset and tried again. Same thing. We opened a trouble ticket with Vecima the next morning, and they were able to reproduce the problem in their lab. Then about 3 hours later, another tech called back and told us we needed to upgrade the firmware (even though the first tech said we were running the latest). We upgraded and that fixed the problem... but then we had a new problem. The "Allowed MAC address" file somehow got corrupted... so they had to SSH into the base station and fix that file. (By the way, this AP is just running Linux 2.6.14 kernel). We were now able to make a connection to one of the CPE (after setting up the service classifiers, service flows, and adding a service flow to this MAC address). Making a link on our test bench (10 feet away), we had a -55ish signal... however, the ping times and speeds were terrible (2000ms and at the most 2Mbps). I am thinking it was because this is running OFDM and in close proximity, the signals bounce all over. Last, all three techs that I talked to at Vecima asked "Do you have an NMS (network management server)?" and I had to continually say "no" and then they would say "oh... I don't know how to do this manually". One of the reasons we were testing this solution is that it did not require their NMS to function... however, even their tech support is pretty limited if you don't have it. Their NMS server is about $5,000 (but a single server will support an entire network, with unlimited AP's and CPE). On to the CPE: This is one of the worst designs of a CPE that I have ever seen. The entire unit is made by Tranzeo and looks just like their normal 2.4 CPE. It has the bar of lights on the top showing Power, LAN, RSSI, etc. The mounting bracket is the "L" bracket that bolts to the back and has a U-bolt and clamp to hook to the pipe. The biggest problem is how the ethernet cable connects. It has the white cover plate that goes over the RJ-45 connector that has to be bolted to the back of the radio... the problem is, the pass-thru connector is not big enough to allow an already crimped RJ-45 cable to pass thru... meaning, you have to run the cable thru the white plastic thing, then crimp it, then plug it in, and then screw the nuts down holding the white cover. If you ever have to replace the radio with something different, you have to cut the cable and then re-crimp. Also, I can guarantee that water is going to get into the RJ-45 as it is on the back of the radio and the water will always be trying to get into the white cover and then will just "flow" right into the RJ-45. I have attached a picture that is 99% the same as this unit (except this unit is smaller than the picture). The other issue is the PoE injector that comes with the unit. This is the worst PoE that I have ever seen. I don't understand why they can't use a grounded PoE that doesn't require a separate ground wire. Use the ground built into the electrical wiring that is already there (like the PacWireless PoE units). Attached is a picture of the PoE that was supplied. I will be testing the speeds and range this Monday (assuming the weather is better... we got 6" of snow and 40MPH winds last night). I will post more results as I have them. At this point, I am not really impressed with a $4,000 AP that's just running Linux. Travis Microserv WISPA Wants You! Join today!
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
Could the StarTac even text message? IIRC, that was the first digital phone, at least by Moto. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 2:05 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Cc: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 iirc one vendor told me the recline CPe could talk with the Vecima base The redline units are top notch quality construction, no tranzeo mickey mouse stuff. Afaik pricing is not much diferent Gino Sent from my Motorola Startac... On Dec 13, 2008, at 2:37 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net wrote: Hi, We received our Vecima trial kit (one AP and five CPE) on Thursday afternoon. We have not yet put it on a tower, as there were several issues with their software on the AP... but here's some info thus far: The base station is quite large. It measures approximately 14 inches tall x 8 inches wide x 6 inches thick. It weighs about 25 pounds (seriously). It has an RJ-45 ethernet connector and an N-male connector on the bottom. (I was lead to believe they had omni, 90 degree, 120 degree and connectorized versions, and I requested the 120 unit, but instead got this with an LMR jumper and an MTI 120 antenna). We began by getting into the AP and making some normal changes (downlink was set to 50%, so we changed it to 70%). Also the center frequency was set to 3.410 so we changed that to 3.650. We also changed to 7mhz channel size. We then applied and rebooted... and then we could no longer get into the radio configuration page (where we had just made all those changes). So we did a factory reset and tried again. Same thing. We opened a trouble ticket with Vecima the next morning, and they were able to reproduce the problem in their lab. Then about 3 hours later, another tech called back and told us we needed to upgrade the firmware (even though the first tech said we were running the latest). We upgraded and that fixed the problem... but then we had a new problem. The Allowed MAC address file somehow got corrupted... so they had to SSH into the base station and fix that file. (By the way, this AP is just running Linux 2.6.14 kernel). We were now able to make a connection to one of the CPE (after setting up the service classifiers, service flows, and adding a service flow to this MAC address). Making a link on our test bench (10 feet away), we had a -55ish signal... however, the ping times and speeds were terrible (2000ms and at the most 2Mbps). I am thinking it was because this is running OFDM and in close proximity, the signals bounce all over. Last, all three techs that I talked to at Vecima asked Do you have an NMS (network management server)? and I had to continually say no and then they would say oh... I don't know how to do this manually. One of the reasons we were testing this solution is that it did not require their NMS to function... however, even their tech support is pretty limited if you don't have it. Their NMS server is about $5,000 (but a single server will support an entire network, with unlimited AP's and CPE). On to the CPE: This is one of the worst designs of a CPE that I have ever seen. The entire unit is made by Tranzeo and looks just like their normal 2.4 CPE. It has the bar of lights on the top showing Power, LAN, RSSI, etc. The mounting bracket is the L bracket that bolts to the back and has a U-bolt and clamp to hook to the pipe. The biggest problem is how the ethernet cable connects. It has the white cover plate that goes over the RJ-45 connector that has to be bolted to the back of the radio... the problem is, the pass-thru connector is not big enough to allow an already crimped RJ-45 cable to pass thru... meaning, you have to run the cable thru the white plastic thing, then crimp it, then plug it in, and then screw the nuts down holding the white cover. If you ever have to replace the radio with something different, you have to cut the cable and then re-crimp. Also, I can guarantee that water is going to get into the RJ-45 as it is on the back of the radio and the water will always be trying to get into the white cover and then will just flow right into the RJ-45. I have attached a picture that is 99% the same as this unit (except this unit is smaller than the picture). The other issue is the PoE injector that comes with the unit. This is the worst PoE that I have ever seen. I don't understand why they can't use a grounded PoE that doesn't require a separate ground wire. Use the ground built into the electrical wiring that is already there (like the PacWireless PoE units). Attached is a picture of the PoE that was supplied. I will be testing the speeds and range this Monday (assuming the weather is better... we got 6 of snow and 40MPH winds last night). I will post more results as I
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
When we used Tranzeos that very waterproof system is the worst system I have seen. It may have been our installs or the weather, but that cover is horrible. Coax seal did a good job of fixing those issues, however, it made it additionally difficult. On 12/13/08, Randy Cosby dco...@infowest.com wrote: Travis, You've never had the pleasure of dealing with Tranzeo's ethernet connector? They insist this is the most waterproof / weatherproof way they've found. Even so, it is a pain in the rear, I agree. Looking forward to seeing more test results. Thanks for doing the product beta test and development for us :) Randy Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, We received our Vecima trial kit (one AP and five CPE) on Thursday afternoon. We have not yet put it on a tower, as there were several issues with their software on the AP... but here's some info thus far: The base station is quite large. It measures approximately 14 inches tall x 8 inches wide x 6 inches thick. It weighs about 25 pounds (seriously). It has an RJ-45 ethernet connector and an N-male connector on the bottom. (I was lead to believe they had omni, 90 degree, 120 degree and connectorized versions, and I requested the 120 unit, but instead got this with an LMR jumper and an MTI 120 antenna). We began by getting into the AP and making some normal changes (downlink was set to 50%, so we changed it to 70%). Also the center frequency was set to 3.410 so we changed that to 3.650. We also changed to 7mhz channel size. We then applied and rebooted... and then we could no longer get into the radio configuration page (where we had just made all those changes). So we did a factory reset and tried again. Same thing. We opened a trouble ticket with Vecima the next morning, and they were able to reproduce the problem in their lab. Then about 3 hours later, another tech called back and told us we needed to upgrade the firmware (even though the first tech said we were running the latest). We upgraded and that fixed the problem... but then we had a new problem. The Allowed MAC address file somehow got corrupted... so they had to SSH into the base station and fix that file. (By the way, this AP is just running Linux 2.6.14 kernel). We were now able to make a connection to one of the CPE (after setting up the service classifiers, service flows, and adding a service flow to this MAC address). Making a link on our test bench (10 feet away), we had a -55ish signal... however, the ping times and speeds were terrible (2000ms and at the most 2Mbps). I am thinking it was because this is running OFDM and in close proximity, the signals bounce all over. Last, all three techs that I talked to at Vecima asked Do you have an NMS (network management server)? and I had to continually say no and then they would say oh... I don't know how to do this manually. One of the reasons we were testing this solution is that it did not require their NMS to function... however, even their tech support is pretty limited if you don't have it. Their NMS server is about $5,000 (but a single server will support an entire network, with unlimited AP's and CPE). On to the CPE: This is one of the worst designs of a CPE that I have ever seen. The entire unit is made by Tranzeo and looks just like their normal 2.4 CPE. It has the bar of lights on the top showing Power, LAN, RSSI, etc. The mounting bracket is the L bracket that bolts to the back and has a U-bolt and clamp to hook to the pipe. The biggest problem is how the ethernet cable connects. It has the white cover plate that goes over the RJ-45 connector that has to be bolted to the back of the radio... the problem is, the pass-thru connector is not big enough to allow an already crimped RJ-45 cable to pass thru... meaning, you have to run the cable thru the white plastic thing, then crimp it, then plug it in, and then screw the nuts down holding the white cover. If you ever have to replace the radio with something different, you have to cut the cable and then re-crimp. Also, I can guarantee that water is going to get into the RJ-45 as it is on the back of the radio and the water will always be trying to get into the white cover and then will just flow right into the RJ-45. I have attached a picture that is 99% the same as this unit (except this unit is smaller than the picture). The other issue is the PoE injector that comes with the unit. This is the worst PoE that I have ever seen. I don't understand why they can't use a grounded PoE that doesn't require a separate ground wire. Use the ground built into the electrical wiring that is already there (like the PacWireless PoE units). Attached is a picture of the PoE that was supplied. I will be testing the speeds and range this Monday (assuming the weather is better... we got 6 of snow and 40MPH winds last night). I will post more results as I have them. At this point, I am not really impressed with a $4,000 AP that's just
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
Actually it's a dynatac 5000 :-) Sent from my Motorola Startac... On Dec 13, 2008, at 4:18 PM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: Could the StarTac even text message? IIRC, that was the first digital phone, at least by Moto. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 2:05 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Cc: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 iirc one vendor told me the recline CPe could talk with the Vecima base The redline units are top notch quality construction, no tranzeo mickey mouse stuff. Afaik pricing is not much diferent Gino Sent from my Motorola Startac... On Dec 13, 2008, at 2:37 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net wrote: Hi, We received our Vecima trial kit (one AP and five CPE) on Thursday afternoon. We have not yet put it on a tower, as there were several issues with their software on the AP... but here's some info thus far: The base station is quite large. It measures approximately 14 inches tall x 8 inches wide x 6 inches thick. It weighs about 25 pounds (seriously). It has an RJ-45 ethernet connector and an N-male connector on the bottom. (I was lead to believe they had omni, 90 degree, 120 degree and connectorized versions, and I requested the 120 unit, but instead got this with an LMR jumper and an MTI 120 antenna). We began by getting into the AP and making some normal changes (downlink was set to 50%, so we changed it to 70%). Also the center frequency was set to 3.410 so we changed that to 3.650. We also changed to 7mhz channel size. We then applied and rebooted... and then we could no longer get into the radio configuration page (where we had just made all those changes). So we did a factory reset and tried again. Same thing. We opened a trouble ticket with Vecima the next morning, and they were able to reproduce the problem in their lab. Then about 3 hours later, another tech called back and told us we needed to upgrade the firmware (even though the first tech said we were running the latest). We upgraded and that fixed the problem... but then we had a new problem. The Allowed MAC address file somehow got corrupted... so they had to SSH into the base station and fix that file. (By the way, this AP is just running Linux 2.6.14 kernel). We were now able to make a connection to one of the CPE (after setting up the service classifiers, service flows, and adding a service flow to this MAC address). Making a link on our test bench (10 feet away), we had a -55ish signal... however, the ping times and speeds were terrible (2000ms and at the most 2Mbps). I am thinking it was because this is running OFDM and in close proximity, the signals bounce all over. Last, all three techs that I talked to at Vecima asked Do you have an NMS (network management server)? and I had to continually say no and then they would say oh... I don't know how to do this manually. One of the reasons we were testing this solution is that it did not require their NMS to function... however, even their tech support is pretty limited if you don't have it. Their NMS server is about $5,000 (but a single server will support an entire network, with unlimited AP's and CPE). On to the CPE: This is one of the worst designs of a CPE that I have ever seen. The entire unit is made by Tranzeo and looks just like their normal 2.4 CPE. It has the bar of lights on the top showing Power, LAN, RSSI, etc. The mounting bracket is the L bracket that bolts to the back and has a U-bolt and clamp to hook to the pipe. The biggest problem is how the ethernet cable connects. It has the white cover plate that goes over the RJ-45 connector that has to be bolted to the back of the radio... the problem is, the pass-thru connector is not big enough to allow an already crimped RJ-45 cable to pass thru... meaning, you have to run the cable thru the white plastic thing, then crimp it, then plug it in, and then screw the nuts down holding the white cover. If you ever have to replace the radio with something different, you have to cut the cable and then re-crimp. Also, I can guarantee that water is going to get into the RJ-45 as it is on the back of the radio and the water will always be trying to get into the white cover and then will just flow right into the RJ-45. I have attached a picture that is 99% the same as this unit (except this unit is smaller than the picture). The other issue is the PoE injector that comes with the unit. This is the worst PoE that I have ever seen. I don't understand why they can't use a grounded PoE that doesn't require a separate ground wire. Use the ground built into the electrical wiring that is already there (like the PacWireless PoE units). Attached is a picture of the PoE that was supplied. I
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
No... I've never had that experience... and I probably won't... it seems really "cheap"... and having to re-crimp if you change radio type makes it even worse. :( Travis Microserv Randy Cosby wrote: Travis, You've never had the pleasure of dealing with Tranzeo's ethernet connector? They insist this is the most waterproof / weatherproof way they've found. Even so, it is a pain in the rear, I agree. Looking forward to seeing more test results. Thanks for doing the product beta test and development for us :) Randy Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, We received our Vecima "trial" kit (one AP and five CPE) on Thursday afternoon. We have not yet put it on a tower, as there were several issues with their software on the AP... but here's some info thus far: The base station is quite large. It measures approximately 14 inches tall x 8 inches wide x 6 inches thick. It weighs about 25 pounds (seriously). It has an RJ-45 ethernet connector and an N-male connector on the bottom. (I was lead to believe they had omni, 90 degree, 120 degree and connectorized versions, and I requested the 120 unit, but instead got this with an LMR jumper and an MTI 120 antenna). We began by getting into the AP and making some "normal" changes (downlink was set to 50%, so we changed it to 70%). Also the center frequency was set to 3.410 so we changed that to 3.650. We also changed to 7mhz channel size. We then applied and rebooted... and then we could no longer get into the "radio" configuration page (where we had just made all those changes). So we did a factory reset and tried again. Same thing. We opened a trouble ticket with Vecima the next morning, and they were able to reproduce the problem in their lab. Then about 3 hours later, another tech called back and told us we needed to upgrade the firmware (even though the first tech said we were running the latest). We upgraded and that fixed the problem... but then we had a new problem. The "Allowed MAC address" file somehow got corrupted... so they had to SSH into the base station and fix that file. (By the way, this AP is just running Linux 2.6.14 kernel). We were now able to make a connection to one of the CPE (after setting up the service classifiers, service flows, and adding a service flow to this MAC address). Making a link on our test bench (10 feet away), we had a -55ish signal... however, the ping times and speeds were terrible (2000ms and at the most 2Mbps). I am thinking it was because this is running OFDM and in close proximity, the signals bounce all over. Last, all three techs that I talked to at Vecima asked "Do you have an NMS (network management server)?" and I had to continually say "no" and then they would say "oh... I don't know how to do this manually". One of the reasons we were testing this solution is that it did not require their NMS to function... however, even their tech support is pretty limited if you don't have it. Their NMS server is about $5,000 (but a single server will support an entire network, with unlimited AP's and CPE). On to the CPE: This is one of the worst designs of a CPE that I have ever seen. The entire unit is made by Tranzeo and looks just like their normal 2.4 CPE. It has the bar of lights on the top showing Power, LAN, RSSI, etc. The mounting bracket is the "L" bracket that bolts to the back and has a U-bolt and clamp to hook to the pipe. The biggest problem is how the ethernet cable connects. It has the white cover plate that goes over the RJ-45 connector that has to be bolted to the back of the radio... the problem is, the pass-thru connector is not big enough to allow an already crimped RJ-45 cable to pass thru... meaning, you have to run the cable thru the white plastic thing, then crimp it, then plug it in, and then screw the nuts down holding the white cover. If you ever have to replace the radio with something different, you have to cut the cable and then re-crimp. Also, I can guarantee that water is going to get into the RJ-45 as it is on the back of the radio and the water will always be trying to get into the white cover and then will just "flow" right into the RJ-45. I have attached a picture that is 99% the same as this unit (except this unit is smaller than the picture). The other issue is the PoE injector that comes with the unit. This is the worst PoE that I have ever seen. I don't understand why they can't use a grounded PoE that doesn't require a separate ground wire. Use the ground built into the electrical wiring that is already there (like the PacWireless PoE units). Attached is a picture of the PoE that was supplied. I will be testing the speeds and range this Monday (assuming the weather is better... we got 6" of snow and 40MPH winds last night). I will post more results as I have them. At this point, I am not really impressed with a $4,000 AP that's just running Linux. Travis Microserv
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
Gino, What have your results been with the Redline product? Travis Microserv Gino Villarini wrote: it uses 802.03af PS ... My point was that you could use the low cost Vecima Bases with these CPEs ... or stick with el cheapo tranzeo units Would you pay extra $50 for a quality cpe? I'll do Definetly Tranzeo does not manufacture this unit Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 7:21 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 U pricing is WAY, WAY different. Redline AP's are around $10k Vecima AP's are around $4k Redline CPE's are $300 each (even in 250 quantity) Vecima CPE's are less than $249 And, I was told Tranzeo is making Redline's CPE as well? Could you send a picture of the Redline CPE? Travis Microserv Gino Villarini wrote: iirc one vendor told me the recline CPe could talk with the Vecima base The redline units are top notch quality construction, no tranzeo mickey mouse stuff. Afaik pricing is not much diferent Gino Sent from my Motorola Startac... On Dec 13, 2008, at 2:37 PM, "Travis Johnson" t...@ida.net mailto:t...@ida.net wrote: Hi, We received our Vecima "trial" kit (one AP and five CPE) on Thursday afternoon. We have not yet put it on a tower, as there were several issues with their software on the AP... but here's some info thus far: The base station is quite large. It measures approximately 14 inches tall x 8 inches wide x 6 inches thick. It weighs about 25 pounds (seriously). It has an RJ-45 ethernet connector and an N-male connector on the bottom. (I was lead to believe they had omni, 90 degree, 120 degree and connectorized versions, and I requested the 120 unit, but instead got this with an LMR jumper and an MTI 120 antenna). We began by getting into the AP and making some "normal" changes (downlink was set to 50%, so we changed it to 70%). Also the center frequency was set to 3.410 so we changed that to 3.650. We also changed to 7mhz channel size. We then applied and rebooted... and then we could no longer get into the "radio" configuration page (where we had just made all those changes). So we did a factory reset and tried again. Same thing. We opened a trouble ticket with Vecima the next morning, and they were able to reproduce the problem in their lab. Then about 3 hours later, another tech called back and told us we needed to upgrade the firmware (even though the first tech said we were running the latest). We upgraded and that fixed the problem... but then we had a new problem. The "Allowed MAC address" file somehow got corrupted... so they had to SSH into the base station and fix that file. (By the way, this AP is just running Linux 2.6.14 kernel). We were now able to make a connection to one of the CPE (after setting up the service classifiers, service flows, and adding a service flow to this MAC address). Making a link on our test bench (10 feet away), we had a -55ish signal... however, the ping times and speeds were terrible (2000ms and at the most 2Mbps). I am thinking it was because this is running OFDM and in close proximity, the signals bounce all over. Last, all three techs that I talked to at Vecima asked "Do you have an NMS (network management server)?" and I had to continually say "no" and then they would say "oh... I don't know how to do this manually". One of the reasons we were testing this solution is that it did not require their NMS to function... however, even their tech support is pretty limited if you don't have it. Their NMS server is about $5,000 (but a single server will support an entire network, with unlimited AP's and CPE). On to the CPE: This is one of the worst designs of a CPE that I have ever seen. The entire unit is made by Tranzeo and looks just like their normal 2.4 CPE. It has the bar of lights on the top showing Power, LAN, RSSI, etc. The mounting bracket is the "L" bracket that bolts to the back and has a U-bolt and clamp to hook to the pipe. The biggest problem is how the ethernet cable connects. It has the white cover plate that goes over the RJ-45 connector that has to be bolted to the back of the radio... the problem is, the pass-thru connector is not big enough to allow an already crimped RJ-45 cable to pass thru... meaning, you have to run the cable thru the white plastic thing, then crimp it, then plug it in, and then screw the nuts down holding the white cover. If you ever have to replace the ra