Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

[Jeromie Reeves]

Lonnie Nunweiler wrote:


I am in agreement.  Mesh is being abused by some people.  Mesh is a
routing mechanism in the same way that RIP and OSPF are routing
mechanisms.

No. OLSR is a routing protoco like RIP/OLSR. Meshis a network design 
like Bus, Star and Ring.
Mesh is overloaping Stars produced from one or more PtPa nd PtMP links. 
Look at Matt Liotta's

PDF, its explained very well.


 You don't build a RIP or an OSPF, but rather you employ
RIP or OSPF to organize and automate your routing.  That is all we are
doing with OLSR, just adding another routing option.

I think we'll start describing the new routing as WEB Routing, and let
the MESH guys have their buzzwords.
 


We dont need our own buzz words to muddy thing any more.

Jeromie


Lonnie

On 2/27/06, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 


Lonnie,

What I might not have made clear in previous posts, MESH is to broad a term
to discuss. The way most people would deploy MESH networks today, I feel is
flawed.
I'm referring to wireless with large number of hops between end to end
points to blanket an area.

However, I agree and its worth recognizing that some concepts that are used
for MESH are very worthly of recognition, and a step in the right direction
to improve and smarten routing for wireless network. A perfect example of
this is the open source core to Star-OS's MESH technology. The attempt is to
be able to make smarter decisions, not jsut on Up/Down or shortest path
conditions, but packet loss or latency of the link for example.  OSPF, has
been a standard for years for automatic internal network routing, but it is
really inadequate for Wireless. It can't consider factors that are common to
wireless. For example a marginal link apposed to a down link.  MESH is
working hard to improve intelligent routing based on QOS of links.  So
Star-OS is nothing but a stronger product because it add the MESH features.
But I don't feel what it adds is "mesh".  Mesh is not a protocol, its a
topology. MEsh can;t be added to a radio, a designer uses radios to deploy
MESHes.  What Star-OS is really adding to its product line is SMARTER
routing that considers wireless conditions. These techniques, often
misinterpretted as MESH, can be very useful put to work for an engineered
network as well. I'd love to have a protocol that could determine which path
to take based on packet loss. But I'd deploy that on my master Super cell
router between backhauls, not deploy my network like a huge city mesh with
Radios every 600 feet to blanket an area using the technology.

I think people are confusing "MESH", a topology, with protocols utilized by
MESH.  The protocols used in MESH are worthly. My larger point in previous
Emails is that the intelligence of these advance and ambitious new
protocols, still isn't good enough. It doesn't consider all the factors that
need to be considered to make the most intelligent decissions to replace the
network designer, who otherwise would make those decissions. Off the top of
my head I can't recall all the reason, but two might have been, the inabilty
to track several hops deep, or consider the dollar cost of the decission.

So in summary, "Progress" is not a "Solution".  Progress is a science
project, and sometimes gets us closer to the goal, and often deserves an
award for its innovative ideas, but none the less, progress still is just
progress.  When the end goal is reached, it becomes a solution.

My fear is that there are millions of combinations of things to consider to
determine the best path and how it will effect others.  The inteligence to
compile the data to all the factors would be almost like a Neuro network,
(or what every that name is), and the processing power of rotuer CPE boards
available today, wouldn't have enough processing power to consider it all in
real time, at packet speed.

MESH protocols (not topology, unless you use Cisco's definition :-) has
promise, and I see it on the forefront for further innovation by innovators,
however, it has had promise for the last five years, and is no where near a
solution yet.

Just my 2 cents.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message -
From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 12:02 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment


Tom, what if you could take the Cell/Sector system and add some
routing that determined when a path had stopped and chose another one.

You have controlled this by your choice of units to make those cross
connections and really all that is happening is that the mesh routing
is constantly testing to see if it needs to try another route.

We used to do this manually and what a pain it was.  This new routing
does what I used to do, except it does not sleep, have bathroom breaks
or go out for lunch.  You can assign weights to connections and force
your chosen route to get used, at least until it goes down, which
hopefully never happens

Re: [WISPA] Pigtails..... and 5.8GHz low power....

[JohnnyO]

Roger Peters - [EMAIL PROTECTED]  210-601-7727  - You can call him anytime - he'll answer your call even if he's in the shower ! God he sings horribly ! 

JohnnyO

On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 14:50 -0500, Blair Davis wrote:


After discovering a >5db variance in the pigtails I have when tested at 
5.8GHz, I am looking for a source of pigtails that are 100% tested and 
certified at 5.8GHz.

I need mmcx to N-Female and u.fl to N-Female.  6-12 inch lengths will be 
fine. 

Any recommendations?

PS:  This pigtail problem is why my further report on 5.8GHz performance 
is being delayed..

-- 
Blair Davis

AOL IM Screen Name --  Theory240

West Michigan Wireless ISP
269-686-8648

A division of:
Camp Communication Services, INC





-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

[Lonnie Nunweiler]

I am in agreement.  Mesh is being abused by some people.  Mesh is a
routing mechanism in the same way that RIP and OSPF are routing
mechanisms.  You don't build a RIP or an OSPF, but rather you employ
RIP or OSPF to organize and automate your routing.  That is all we are
doing with OLSR, just adding another routing option.

I think we'll start describing the new routing as WEB Routing, and let
the MESH guys have their buzzwords.

Lonnie

On 2/27/06, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lonnie,
>
> What I might not have made clear in previous posts, MESH is to broad a term
> to discuss. The way most people would deploy MESH networks today, I feel is
> flawed.
> I'm referring to wireless with large number of hops between end to end
> points to blanket an area.
>
> However, I agree and its worth recognizing that some concepts that are used
> for MESH are very worthly of recognition, and a step in the right direction
> to improve and smarten routing for wireless network. A perfect example of
> this is the open source core to Star-OS's MESH technology. The attempt is to
> be able to make smarter decisions, not jsut on Up/Down or shortest path
> conditions, but packet loss or latency of the link for example.  OSPF, has
> been a standard for years for automatic internal network routing, but it is
> really inadequate for Wireless. It can't consider factors that are common to
> wireless. For example a marginal link apposed to a down link.  MESH is
> working hard to improve intelligent routing based on QOS of links.  So
> Star-OS is nothing but a stronger product because it add the MESH features.
> But I don't feel what it adds is "mesh".  Mesh is not a protocol, its a
> topology. MEsh can;t be added to a radio, a designer uses radios to deploy
> MESHes.  What Star-OS is really adding to its product line is SMARTER
> routing that considers wireless conditions. These techniques, often
> misinterpretted as MESH, can be very useful put to work for an engineered
> network as well. I'd love to have a protocol that could determine which path
> to take based on packet loss. But I'd deploy that on my master Super cell
> router between backhauls, not deploy my network like a huge city mesh with
> Radios every 600 feet to blanket an area using the technology.
>
> I think people are confusing "MESH", a topology, with protocols utilized by
> MESH.  The protocols used in MESH are worthly. My larger point in previous
> Emails is that the intelligence of these advance and ambitious new
> protocols, still isn't good enough. It doesn't consider all the factors that
> need to be considered to make the most intelligent decissions to replace the
> network designer, who otherwise would make those decissions. Off the top of
> my head I can't recall all the reason, but two might have been, the inabilty
> to track several hops deep, or consider the dollar cost of the decission.
>
> So in summary, "Progress" is not a "Solution".  Progress is a science
> project, and sometimes gets us closer to the goal, and often deserves an
> award for its innovative ideas, but none the less, progress still is just
> progress.  When the end goal is reached, it becomes a solution.
>
> My fear is that there are millions of combinations of things to consider to
> determine the best path and how it will effect others.  The inteligence to
> compile the data to all the factors would be almost like a Neuro network,
> (or what every that name is), and the processing power of rotuer CPE boards
> available today, wouldn't have enough processing power to consider it all in
> real time, at packet speed.
>
> MESH protocols (not topology, unless you use Cisco's definition :-) has
> promise, and I see it on the forefront for further innovation by innovators,
> however, it has had promise for the last five years, and is no where near a
> solution yet.
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 12:02 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
>
>
> Tom, what if you could take the Cell/Sector system and add some
> routing that determined when a path had stopped and chose another one.
>
> You have controlled this by your choice of units to make those cross
> connections and really all that is happening is that the mesh routing
> is constantly testing to see if it needs to try another route.
>
> We used to do this manually and what a pain it was.  This new routing
> does what I used to do, except it does not sleep, have bathroom breaks
> or go out for lunch.  You can assign weights to connections and force
> your chosen route to get used, at least until it goes down, which
> hopefully never happens, but if and when it does you are covered with
> your alternate path.
>
> What is so terrible about that?
>
> Lonnie
>
> On 2/24/06, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Br

Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

[Tom DeReggi]

It uses a 5.7-8 GHz radio for backhaul and 2.4 GHz for access.


Thats the first mistake of the gear. It should take advantage of 5.3Ghz and 
5.4Ghz, for creating its backhauls.  Using 5.8Ghz for short range backhauls, 
just means that they plan to go head to head against Super Cell providers. 
Sounds like an Interference battle to me.


I wonder why so many people never listen to the quote "I took the road less 
travelled, and it made all the difference", Robert Frost.


5.8Ghz is best for Sector deployments that really need the higher power to 
blast through obstructions or long haul. So why pick the spectrum most in 
demand by everyone else? Unless of course the idea was to deploy sector 
super cell designs as the core to feed the MESH relay points. However, that 
wouldn't really be typical mesh topology, (although it may according to 
Cisco's definition :-)


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "John J. Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment


We are still waiting to deply Cisco mesh, so I can't vouch for it *yet*. We 
will be installing for the City of Gilroy Ca. probably in the next 4 weeks. 
This is currently only a partial deployment, but they plan on lighting the 
whole city. I can tell you that the equipment is expensive -$3500 per mesh 
box but has fantastic specs. It uses a 5.7-8 GHz radio for backhaul and 2.4 
GHz for access. As soon as I get the testing done, I promise to share 
numbers


John Thomas



-Original Message-
From: ISPlists [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 02:32 PM
To: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com, ''WISPA General List''
Subject: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment.  I have a 
small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire town and I'm 
thinking of using mesh technology.  Any ideas would be great.


Thanks,
Steve



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

RE: [WISPA] Basic Mesh Theory

[Brian Webster]

As I recall the 60 GHz band has the problem of major attenuation because the
oxygen molecules resonate at 60 GHz which means normal free space loss
linear calculations have an anomaly at that range (which is why there is so
much spectrum for unlicensed use). You make an excellent point about all the
other spectrum available. The problem is we also have to look at the
business case of these networks on these frequencies. Since you do not have
any chipsets being produced in the millions for these bands there will never
be an affordable solution here. Unfortunately (or fortunately) the only
reason our industry has been one that could remotely be profitable has been
because of the consumer devices that have been adapted due to the cost
factor. Traditionally microwave radio equipment has been expensive and
mostly due to the almost hand made process for each radio since demand is so
low. It's the whole job without experience argument...



Thank You,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com 



-Original Message-
From: Jeromie Reeves [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 3:04 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Basic Mesh Theory


So how much spectum is needed? 24ghz is fairly clean, 60 ~ 70 is very
clean. The problem is NOT the lack of spectrum. It
is the lack of gear for the spectrum that would do well for mesh. Low
range (oh noes low range!) high bandwidth and low noise.
The short range will help with self interferance a lot. The 7ghz (yes,
seven ghz of band space) is enough for 56 100mhz channels
that are non over lapping channels with a 12.5mhz upper/lower gard band,
then toss in cross pol. Ive seen some gear for this
band but it is to costly right now for what it does. We need a SoC with
2 or 4 radios, 50~100mhz per radiowith a 2nd seup with
2 ~4 radios ad 200~400mhz per radio.

Jeromie


Jack Unger wrote:

> Brian,
>
> Exactly. You hit the nail on the head. The high noise levels combined
> with not enough license-free frequency space combined with
> unrealistically high traffic-handling expectations is going to doom
> most  public Wi-Fi-based municipal networks to extinction while at the
> same time, polluting the license-free spectrum that a responsible,
> RF-smart, wireless ISP could have used to deliver reliable service to
> some subset (limited by the available license-free frequency space) of
> that city's citizens.
>
> Maybe the RF-smart WISPs will decide to reach out to their cities and
> make a case for working together to improve public wireless broadband
> access. If WISPs don't work with their city, then the city usually
> turns to a mesh vendor who will, in most cases, promise more than the
> technology (for the reasons you pointed out) can deliver. Even worse,
> large cities are turning to the Earthlinks and Googles of the world,
> as if the Earthlink or Google name is somehow going to bend physics
> and make these networks work. A big corporate name, as we all should
> know by now, does not change the way that RF propagates, or the way
> that interference and spectrum pollution slows down network performance.
>
> Thank you for sharing your thoughts,
>   jack
>
> Brian Webster wrote:
>
>> Jack,
>> Let me jump in with some more thoughts on wireless mesh:
>>
>> I agree with you that RF engineering and RF limitations are not
>> being fully
>> considered in most mesh deployments. Most mesh designs I have seen are
>> theory based and assume the full use of the unlicensed spectrum at hand.
>> This will never be the case and therefore limits the overall
>> capacity. I saw
>> an RFP from the city of Miami Beach and they had done a pre-survey of
>> the
>> city and found the noise floor at 2.4 GHz at -70 db in most areas.
>> Now how
>> is one going to deploy a mesh network with the ability to overcome that?
>> Typical answer is build more nodes closer to each other so these PDAs
>> and
>> laptops get enough signal. This ignores the fact that all of these close
>> spaced nodes then create more noise for each other because they are
>> mounted
>> at a height where they hear each other. In high density nodes even
>> having 2
>> hops will bring these networks to their knees. There is not enough
>> spectrum
>> to make it work and be able to load the network up. An 802.11b based
>> system
>> can not deal with the hidden node problem effectively enough. Even if
>> you do
>> have all the internode traffic on other frequencies at the high density
>> placement required in most cities, the spectrum limits are still a
>> big issue
>> to have the channels to link all the nodes. I would still like to
>> hear of a
>> mesh network from any manufacturer that has been deployed and has a high
>> density of users that are the kids of today. I want to see what bit
>> torrent,
>> VOIP and audio streaming do to a mesh in multiple hops. While we can
>> make
>> the argument that those services can be limited, 

RE: [WISPA] Basic Mesh Theory

[Brad Larson]

Brian, Exactly my thoughts. And I'm with you in the "show me" category. Brad




-Original Message-
From: Brian Webster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 11:01 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Basic Mesh Theory


Jack,
Let me jump in with some more thoughts on wireless mesh:

I agree with you that RF engineering and RF limitations are not
being fully
considered in most mesh deployments. Most mesh designs I have seen are
theory based and assume the full use of the unlicensed spectrum at hand.
This will never be the case and therefore limits the overall capacity. I saw
an RFP from the city of Miami Beach and they had done a pre-survey of the
city and found the noise floor at 2.4 GHz at -70 db in most areas. Now how
is one going to deploy a mesh network with the ability to overcome that?
Typical answer is build more nodes closer to each other so these PDAs and
laptops get enough signal. This ignores the fact that all of these close
spaced nodes then create more noise for each other because they are mounted
at a height where they hear each other. In high density nodes even having 2
hops will bring these networks to their knees. There is not enough spectrum
to make it work and be able to load the network up. An 802.11b based system
can not deal with the hidden node problem effectively enough. Even if you do
have all the internode traffic on other frequencies at the high density
placement required in most cities, the spectrum limits are still a big issue
to have the channels to link all the nodes. I would still like to hear of a
mesh network from any manufacturer that has been deployed and has a high
density of users that are the kids of today. I want to see what bit torrent,
VOIP and audio streaming do to a mesh in multiple hops. While we can make
the argument that those services can be limited, that is only a band-aid
approach as today's society is going to expect to be able to use these
services in one form or another, it may take a while but it will be
necessary. The cellular companies are already creating the expectation for
this kids to be able to audio stream on demand. If someone has knowledge of
a loaded mesh network please let me know. Don't get me wrong, I love the
idea of mesh and wish it could work and want to see it work. It's just that
I've been in ham radio since 1989 and was in to the packet radio technology,
we as hams built networks where we dealt with all of these issues (I know it
was only 1200 baud but the problems remain).  There are two major problems
in mesh from my viewpoint. One, if you have a carrier sense based collision
avoidance system, you always have limited capacity because only one radio
can talk at a time (part of the HDX problem). Two, if you do not have a
carrier sense based system then you can overcome noise with a stronger
signal. This causes cell site shrinkage or breathing and changes the
coverage area. Most people deal with this by building transmitters closer to
each other, problem is that there is limited unlicensed spectrum which is
not enough room for most systems to deal with this.
I really would like to see mesh work and hope to be proven wrong.
There is
a lot of promise in mesh implementations out there but until I have seen
them under residential internet use loads I remain skeptical.



Thank You,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com 



-Original Message-
From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 1:46 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Basic Mesh Theory


Jeromie,

You raise some good points... and here are some more differences between
Matt's fully-meshed WIRED network example and the real-world conditions
under which WIRELESS mesh networks are so often deployed today.

1) REROUTING - Only a node failure or a high peak traffic load would
normally force a routing path change on a fiber/copper network. On a
wireless mesh, routing path changes will also result from interference
caused by other same-network nodes, interference from other networks,
and interference from other wireless non-network sources. Routing path
changes will also be caused by the movement of obstructions and other
rf-reflective objects such as trees and vehicles.

2. CAPACITY - Fiber/copper networks typically start out with
high-capacity (compared to wireless) full-duplex links. Wireless mesh
networks start out with low-capacity half-duplex links.

3. CONNECTIVITY - Fiber/copper mesh network nodes have two or more paths
to other nodes. "Real-world" wireless mesh networks may contain nodes
that, in some cases (the traditional "mesh" definition not withstanding)
only have a path to one other node. For example, obstructions may block
paths to all but one (or even no) other nodes.

4. ENGINEERING - Fiber/copper mesh networks are typically properly
engineered for traffic-carrying capacity, QoS, latency, etc.
"Real-world" wireless mesh networks

Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

[Tom DeReggi]

Lonnie,

What I might not have made clear in previous posts, MESH is to broad a term 
to discuss. The way most people would deploy MESH networks today, I feel is 
flawed.
I'm referring to wireless with large number of hops between end to end 
points to blanket an area.


However, I agree and its worth recognizing that some concepts that are used 
for MESH are very worthly of recognition, and a step in the right direction 
to improve and smarten routing for wireless network. A perfect example of 
this is the open source core to Star-OS's MESH technology. The attempt is to 
be able to make smarter decisions, not jsut on Up/Down or shortest path 
conditions, but packet loss or latency of the link for example.  OSPF, has 
been a standard for years for automatic internal network routing, but it is 
really inadequate for Wireless. It can't consider factors that are common to 
wireless. For example a marginal link apposed to a down link.  MESH is 
working hard to improve intelligent routing based on QOS of links.  So 
Star-OS is nothing but a stronger product because it add the MESH features. 
But I don't feel what it adds is "mesh".  Mesh is not a protocol, its a 
topology. MEsh can;t be added to a radio, a designer uses radios to deploy 
MESHes.  What Star-OS is really adding to its product line is SMARTER 
routing that considers wireless conditions. These techniques, often 
misinterpretted as MESH, can be very useful put to work for an engineered 
network as well. I'd love to have a protocol that could determine which path 
to take based on packet loss. But I'd deploy that on my master Super cell 
router between backhauls, not deploy my network like a huge city mesh with 
Radios every 600 feet to blanket an area using the technology.


I think people are confusing "MESH", a topology, with protocols utilized by 
MESH.  The protocols used in MESH are worthly. My larger point in previous 
Emails is that the intelligence of these advance and ambitious new 
protocols, still isn't good enough. It doesn't consider all the factors that 
need to be considered to make the most intelligent decissions to replace the 
network designer, who otherwise would make those decissions. Off the top of 
my head I can't recall all the reason, but two might have been, the inabilty 
to track several hops deep, or consider the dollar cost of the decission.


So in summary, "Progress" is not a "Solution".  Progress is a science 
project, and sometimes gets us closer to the goal, and often deserves an 
award for its innovative ideas, but none the less, progress still is just 
progress.  When the end goal is reached, it becomes a solution.


My fear is that there are millions of combinations of things to consider to 
determine the best path and how it will effect others.  The inteligence to 
compile the data to all the factors would be almost like a Neuro network, 
(or what every that name is), and the processing power of rotuer CPE boards 
available today, wouldn't have enough processing power to consider it all in 
real time, at packet speed.


MESH protocols (not topology, unless you use Cisco's definition :-) has 
promise, and I see it on the forefront for further innovation by innovators, 
however, it has had promise for the last five years, and is no where near a 
solution yet.


Just my 2 cents.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 12:02 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment


Tom, what if you could take the Cell/Sector system and add some
routing that determined when a path had stopped and chose another one.

You have controlled this by your choice of units to make those cross
connections and really all that is happening is that the mesh routing
is constantly testing to see if it needs to try another route.

We used to do this manually and what a pain it was.  This new routing
does what I used to do, except it does not sleep, have bathroom breaks
or go out for lunch.  You can assign weights to connections and force
your chosen route to get used, at least until it goes down, which
hopefully never happens, but if and when it does you are covered with
your alternate path.

What is so terrible about that?

Lonnie

On 2/24/06, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Brad,

 I agree. Our downtown Mesh versus Cell/Sector trials proved exactly that.
Our tests showed that the cities like DC could be better served with
Cell/Sector models more effectively.
As a matter of fact, Alvarion product, appeared to be well equiped for 
that

task.
I think projects like Phili's will bring a rude awakening. I can't prove
that, but there is no reason for me to.
Thats the point of modelling. So you can pre-dict BEFORE you spend.
Its the Muni's budget to pay for, to find the true answer, not mine.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Orig

[WISPA] [Fwd: [TVWHITESPACE] news exerpt that 04-186 may be moving at the FCC]

[John Scrivner]

If you never thought you had a voice in D.C. then you were wrong. I was 
starting to think a person could not make a difference until I started 
seeing what we have seen of late from D.C. The access to television 
channels spaces is the biggest step we could have ever hoped to make in 
providing universal wireless broadband access in the United States. It 
was quite possibly the biggest reason I wanted to see a WISP run 
organization created to work for better policy and law for our industry. 
We do not have this television space yet but all indications of late are 
pointing to the direction of the passage of 04-186 that so many of you 
took the time to comment on. You made it happen.  Whether it happens now 
or not you can know you made your voices heard and I am proud of all of 
you  for your efforts to help your industry.

Kindest regards,
John Scrivner


 Original Message 
Subject:[TVWHITESPACE] news exerpt that 04-186 may be moving at the FCC
Date:   Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:18:12 -0500
From:   Jim Snider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: 	FCC NPRM for UHF TV Band Unlicensed Use 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



COMMUNICATIONS DAILY

February 27, 2006 Monday

SECTION: TODAY'S NEWS

LENGTH: 487 words

HEADLINE: Stalled White Spaces Rulemaking Closer to FCC Vote

The FCC, under growing congressional and high-tech sector pressure, is
closer to approving a rulemaking opening unused TV channels to
unlicensed use, sources said. The final "white spaces" rule could come
this summer and would take effect after the DTV transition ends in 2009.


A white spaces bill unveiled last week by Senate Commerce Committee
Chmn. Stevens (R-Alaska) and other senators (CD Feb 21 p1) would open
unused broadcast TV spectrum between 72 and 698 MHz. Sen. Allen (R-Va.)
also introduced a bill. The war over white spaces will pit broadcasters
against Microsoft and other high-tech firms eager for more spectrum to
be used by Wi-Fi and other unlicensed devices. Broadcasters historically
have urged the FCC to move cautiously, especially given uncertainty as
they convert systems to digital.

"I'm hearing this is moving, maybe not this week, but relatively soon,"
said a lawyer who lobbies the FCC. "Since Congress is getting involved,
it gives [Chmn.] Martin cover to stand up to the broadcasters and that
may be all he needs." Opening TV white spaces to unlicensed use ranked
high as a recommendation in a 2002 report by the FCC's Spectrum Policy
Task Force. In May 2004, the FCC authorized a white spaces notice of
proposed rulemaking that has languished since. The FCC was said to be
near approval of a white spaces order in 2005, just before former Chmn.
Michael Powell left the Commission, but never pulled the trigger.

Conventional wisdom has been that Chmn. Martin is reluctant to move
forward. When the NPRM was voted out, he voiced concern about "the
proceeding's impact on the broadcasters and their transition to digital
television." Martin expressed similar sentiments in Dec. 2002, when the
FCC launched an inquiry into permitting unlicensed transmitters to
operate in additional frequency bands.

"I'm hearing lots of noises that were more positive than anything I
expected, because Kevin Martin has traditionally been so hostile" to the
proposal, a regulatory attorney said: "There seems like there's more
openness than I ever expected that we'd see." Introduction of white
spaces bills "would seem to give him cover to proceed if he was inclined
to do so," a 2nd attorney said: "The problem is going to be working
through adequate protection and ensuring the technology will work to
protect incumbents. It sounds easy in principle. It may be more
difficult in practice."


J.H. Snider, Ph.D.
Director of Research, Wireless Future Program
New America Foundation
1630 Connecticut Ave., NW
Washington, DC  20009
Phone: 202/986-2700
Fax: 202/986-3696
Web: www.newamerica.net 
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
My Book Website: speaksoftly.jhsnider.net

My Personal Blog: jhsnider.net/telecompolicy





begin:vcard
fn:John Scrivner
n:Scrivner;John
org:Mt. Vernon. Net, Inc.
adr;dom:PO Box 1582;;1 Dr Park Road Suite H1;Mt. Vernon;Il;62864
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:President
tel;work:618-244-6868
url:http://www.mvn.net/
version:2.1
end:vcard

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

[WISPA] Tranzeo

[chris cooper]

Can anyone share experiences with the Tranzeo 5824F
series?  Looking for a BH solution that supports QoS and is upwards of 50
Mb and reliable. Ive looked at this, Ceragon and Waverider.  Any insights
are much appreciated.

 

Chris Cooper

Intelliwave






-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Pigtails..... and 5.8GHz low power....

[George Rogato]

Hi Blair

I found this company on the star-os site:

Phillip Stiles
Sales
*MRO Electronic Supply Ltd*
5, 1247, 36 Av. N.E.
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
T2E 6N6
403-291-0501
800-882-9301
FX:403-291-0530

From what was posted, it sounded like they manufacture custom quality 
pigtails that are supposedly tested.


I'm not sure how they test a pigtail but you can always ask.

Hope this is helpful.

George

Blair Davis wrote:
After discovering a >5db variance in the pigtails I have when tested at 
5.8GHz, I am looking for a source of pigtails that are 100% tested and 
certified at 5.8GHz.


I need mmcx to N-Female and u.fl to N-Female.  6-12 inch lengths will be 
fine.

Any recommendations?

PS:  This pigtail problem is why my further report on 5.8GHz performance 
is being delayed..



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: OFFLIST - Was [WISPA] Pigtails..... and 5.8GHz low power....

[Blair Davis]

Jack,

When a dropping the pigtail off the desk breaks the connection to the 
N-Femail connector, that is just not acceptable.


SWR should be low if loss is low, but, I have a pigtail here that is 
asymmetrical  more loss on tx than on rx.In my experience, at 
lower frequencies, that is a symptom of an swr problem.  I'm not sure 
about at microwave frequencies, but I would assume that swr works the 
same there


Pricing?   I'm not good at that, but, say a 50% premium over standard 
units?  I'd pay that just to stop hand sorting them.


But, one thing here  If these are to be advertised and sold as 100% 
tested and certified, they had better be that.  The first bad one a 
customer gets will really mess up the marketing.


Consistently is a major issue.  It would be nice to know that the 
pigtail will insert no more than say .75db of loss  or, each pigtail 
is labeled with it's tested loss.





Jack Unger wrote:


Blair,

So it sounds like you would like

1. Consistent, low-loss
2. Connectors that don't pull off easily (although tiny connectors are 
always going to be easy to damage)
3. Low SWR (if the loss is low, that already confirms that the SWR is 
low)


How should these be priced compared to non-certified cables?

Thanks,
jack


Blair Davis wrote:


Jack,

For myself, loss, physical integrity and possibly swr.

Others might have other things to add.

My own testing here with a repeatable lash up of my own devising has 
shown some pigtails being 12db! down from apparently identical 
pigtails.
While I can not be sure of the absolute loss in db with my test rig, 
unit-to-unit variance should not be over 1db, IMHO.


Jack Unger wrote:


Hey Blair,

You've given me an idea or two -

1. Maybe I could find a cable vendor who will sell pre-certified 5.8 
GHz pigtails.


2. Maybe I should offer to sell certified 5.8 cables myself.

What qualities would you want tested and certified - just dB loss?

How much do you think the industry would be willing to pay for a 
tested and certified 5.8 GHz pigtail compared to the cost of 
non-certified pigtails?


Thanks,
jack

Blair Davis wrote:

After discovering a >5db variance in the pigtails I have when 
tested at 5.8GHz, I am looking for a source of pigtails that are 
100% tested and certified at 5.8GHz.


I need mmcx to N-Female and u.fl to N-Female.  6-12 inch lengths 
will be fine.

Any recommendations?

PS:  This pigtail problem is why my further report on 5.8GHz 
performance is being delayed..












--
Blair Davis

AOL IM Screen Name --  Theory240

West Michigan Wireless ISP
269-686-8648

A division of:
Camp Communication Services, INC

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: OFFLIST - Was [WISPA] Pigtails..... and 5.8GHz low power....

[Blair Davis]

Jack,

For myself, loss, physical integrity and possibly swr.

Others might have other things to add.

My own testing here with a repeatable lash up of my own devising has 
shown some pigtails being 12db! down from apparently identical 
pigtails. 

While I can not be sure of the absolute loss in db with my test rig, 
unit-to-unit variance should not be over 1db, IMHO.


Jack Unger wrote:


Hey Blair,

You've given me an idea or two -

1. Maybe I could find a cable vendor who will sell pre-certified 5.8 
GHz pigtails.


2. Maybe I should offer to sell certified 5.8 cables myself.

What qualities would you want tested and certified - just dB loss?

How much do you think the industry would be willing to pay for a 
tested and certified 5.8 GHz pigtail compared to the cost of 
non-certified pigtails?


Thanks,
jack

Blair Davis wrote:

After discovering a >5db variance in the pigtails I have when tested 
at 5.8GHz, I am looking for a source of pigtails that are 100% tested 
and certified at 5.8GHz.


I need mmcx to N-Female and u.fl to N-Female.  6-12 inch lengths will 
be fine.

Any recommendations?

PS:  This pigtail problem is why my further report on 5.8GHz 
performance is being delayed..







--
Blair Davis

AOL IM Screen Name --  Theory240

West Michigan Wireless ISP
269-686-8648

A division of:
Camp Communication Services, INC

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

[WISPA] Is this true? And if so, this can not be good for ISP's of any kind!

[Jory Privett]

Title: Message




 
 
 

Legislation Championed by Rep. 
King
Leads to Unprecedented Technology 
Investment
New Technologies, Strengthened 
Investment Flowing into State;
High-Speed Internet on its Way to 71 
Small Texas 
Communities
 
Austin 
– City leaders from across Texas 
converged on Austin on February 
20th to celebrate the coming of high-speed Internet technology to 
their communities, a benefit of Senate Bill 5 which Rep. Phil 
King sponsored in 2005.
 
“Modern technology is vital to our communities,” King 
said. “Broadband, or high-speed Internet service, in particular, helps us 
educate our young people, it helps our businesses compete in the 21st 
century economy, and it keeps us in touch with the world.”
 
As a result of the bill, 71 
Texas communities, most of them small 
and in rural areas, are slated to receive high-speed Internet technology by the 
end of the year. When the technology roll-out is completed, every switching 
location served by AT&T, the state’s largest communications company, will be 
capable of delivering broadband service.
 
“In the Legislature, we are constantly working to find 
ways to increase investment in our communities,” King said. “This is really an 
unprecedented level of high-speed Internet technology, and having this happen 
makes our hard work on Senate Bill 5 well worth the effort.”
 
Texans are seeing other significant benefits as a result 
of the bipartisan legislation. In Keller, cable rates have dropped significantly 
as a result of increased competition from a new market entrant. TXU, a major 
electric delivery company, has announced a $150 million infrastructure upgrade 
that will include the largest deployment of broadband over power line (BPL) 
technology in the nation. When TXU’s upgrade is complete, BPL will be available 
to more than 2 million homes and business in North 
Texas.
 
Senate Bill 5, hailed nationally for its groundbreaking 
provisions to open up the cable television market to greater competition, has 
lately been the subject of wide praise for is impact on technology investment in 
Texas.
 
On Monday, Senate Bill 5 was recognized by the Internet 
Innovation Alliance (IIA) for creating a public policy environment that 
encourages greater technology investment, competition and consumer choice. Also 
recently, the Americans for Prosperity (AFP) Foundation named King a “Defender 
of the American Dream” and gave his record in the legislature a grade of “A.” 
The organization supports public policies built on the principles of 
entrepreneurship and fiscal and regulatory restraint.
 
“I’m proud of the recognition of the hard work of the 
Texas Legislature,” King said. “But what is most important is what that work 
does for the people we represent. With this bill, we have helped bring new 
investment dollars to Texas and we are 
bringing new technologies and choices to consumers.”
 
###
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Basic Mesh Theory

[Jeromie Reeves]

So how much spectum is needed? 24ghz is fairly clean, 60 ~ 70 is very 
clean. The problem is NOT the lack of spectrum. It
is the lack of gear for the spectrum that would do well for mesh. Low 
range (oh noes low range!) high bandwidth and low noise.
The short range will help with self interferance a lot. The 7ghz (yes, 
seven ghz of band space) is enough for 56 100mhz channels
that are non over lapping channels with a 12.5mhz upper/lower gard band, 
then toss in cross pol. Ive seen some gear for this
band but it is to costly right now for what it does. We need a SoC with 
2 or 4 radios, 50~100mhz per radiowith a 2nd seup with

2 ~4 radios ad 200~400mhz per radio.

Jeromie


Jack Unger wrote:


Brian,

Exactly. You hit the nail on the head. The high noise levels combined 
with not enough license-free frequency space combined with 
unrealistically high traffic-handling expectations is going to doom 
most  public Wi-Fi-based municipal networks to extinction while at the 
same time, polluting the license-free spectrum that a responsible, 
RF-smart, wireless ISP could have used to deliver reliable service to 
some subset (limited by the available license-free frequency space) of 
that city's citizens.


Maybe the RF-smart WISPs will decide to reach out to their cities and 
make a case for working together to improve public wireless broadband 
access. If WISPs don't work with their city, then the city usually 
turns to a mesh vendor who will, in most cases, promise more than the 
technology (for the reasons you pointed out) can deliver. Even worse, 
large cities are turning to the Earthlinks and Googles of the world, 
as if the Earthlink or Google name is somehow going to bend physics 
and make these networks work. A big corporate name, as we all should 
know by now, does not change the way that RF propagates, or the way 
that interference and spectrum pollution slows down network performance.


Thank you for sharing your thoughts,
  jack

Brian Webster wrote:


Jack,
Let me jump in with some more thoughts on wireless mesh:

I agree with you that RF engineering and RF limitations are not 
being fully

considered in most mesh deployments. Most mesh designs I have seen are
theory based and assume the full use of the unlicensed spectrum at hand.
This will never be the case and therefore limits the overall 
capacity. I saw
an RFP from the city of Miami Beach and they had done a pre-survey of 
the
city and found the noise floor at 2.4 GHz at -70 db in most areas. 
Now how

is one going to deploy a mesh network with the ability to overcome that?
Typical answer is build more nodes closer to each other so these PDAs 
and

laptops get enough signal. This ignores the fact that all of these close
spaced nodes then create more noise for each other because they are 
mounted
at a height where they hear each other. In high density nodes even 
having 2
hops will bring these networks to their knees. There is not enough 
spectrum
to make it work and be able to load the network up. An 802.11b based 
system
can not deal with the hidden node problem effectively enough. Even if 
you do

have all the internode traffic on other frequencies at the high density
placement required in most cities, the spectrum limits are still a 
big issue
to have the channels to link all the nodes. I would still like to 
hear of a

mesh network from any manufacturer that has been deployed and has a high
density of users that are the kids of today. I want to see what bit 
torrent,
VOIP and audio streaming do to a mesh in multiple hops. While we can 
make

the argument that those services can be limited, that is only a band-aid
approach as today's society is going to expect to be able to use these
services in one form or another, it may take a while but it will be
necessary. The cellular companies are already creating the 
expectation for
this kids to be able to audio stream on demand. If someone has 
knowledge of

a loaded mesh network please let me know. Don't get me wrong, I love the
idea of mesh and wish it could work and want to see it work. It's 
just that
I've been in ham radio since 1989 and was in to the packet radio 
technology,
we as hams built networks where we dealt with all of these issues (I 
know it
was only 1200 baud but the problems remain).  There are two major 
problems
in mesh from my viewpoint. One, if you have a carrier sense based 
collision
avoidance system, you always have limited capacity because only one 
radio

can talk at a time (part of the HDX problem). Two, if you do not have a
carrier sense based system then you can overcome noise with a stronger
signal. This causes cell site shrinkage or breathing and changes the
coverage area. Most people deal with this by building transmitters 
closer to
each other, problem is that there is limited unlicensed spectrum 
which is

not enough room for most systems to deal with this.
I really would like to see mesh work and hope to be proven wr

[WISPA] Pigtails..... and 5.8GHz low power....

[Blair Davis]

After discovering a >5db variance in the pigtails I have when tested at 
5.8GHz, I am looking for a source of pigtails that are 100% tested and 
certified at 5.8GHz.


I need mmcx to N-Female and u.fl to N-Female.  6-12 inch lengths will be 
fine. 


Any recommendations?

PS:  This pigtail problem is why my further report on 5.8GHz performance 
is being delayed..


--
Blair Davis

AOL IM Screen Name --  Theory240

West Michigan Wireless ISP
269-686-8648

A division of:
Camp Communication Services, INC

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

[WISPA] WISPS DO have to file the 477

[Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181]

Thanks Kris!

For those that don't know him, Kris is a telecom attorney who's been a HUGE 
friend to the WISP industry.


http://www.lokt.net/

Laters,
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - 
From: "Lists for LoKT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "'Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 10:26 AM
Subject: RE: FCC Digest, Vol 12, Issue 8


Yes, WISPs must fill out Form 477. Here is the link to the instructions 
for

the form: http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form477/477instr.pdf
In that form, the relevant part is below. And as an aside, sheesh, 
everybody

should try to be a little nicer to each other. And that's coming from a
lawyer even...

. Facilities-based Providers of Broadband Connections to End User 
Locations:

Entities that are facilities-based providers of broadband connections -
which, for purposes of this information collection, are wired "lines" or
wireless "channels" that enable the end user to receive information from
and/or send information to the Internet at information transfer rates
exceeding 200 kbps in at least one direction - must complete and file the
applicable portions of this form for each state in which the entity 
provides

one or more such connections to end user locations.

For the purposes of Form 477, an entity is a "facilities-based" provider 
of

broadband connections to end user locations if it owns the portion of the
physical facility that terminates at the end user location, if it obtains
unbundled network elements (UNEs), special access lines, or other leased
facilities that terminate at the end user location and provisions/equips
them as broadband, or if it provisions/equips a broadband wireless channel
to the end user location over licensed or unlicensed spectrum. Such 
entities

include incumbent and competitive local exchange carriers (LECs), cable
system operators, fixed wireless service providers (including "wireless
ISPs"), terrestrial and satellite mobile wireless service providers, MMDS
providers, electric utilities, municipalities, and other entities. (Such
entities do not include equipment suppliers unless the equipment supplier
uses the equipment to provision a broadband connection that it offers to 
the

public for sale. Such entities also do not include providers of fixed
wireless services (e.g., "Wi-Fi" and other wireless ethernet,or wireless
local area network, applications) that only enable local distribution and
sharing of a premises broadband facility.) For such entities, the 
applicable

portions of the form are: 1) the Cover Page; 2) Part I; 3) Part IV (if
necessary); and the relevant portion(s) of Part V.

Kris
__
Kristopher E. Twomey
Telecom/Internet Law and Regulatory Consulting
510 903-1304
www.lokt.net


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 10:00 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: FCC Digest, Vol 12, Issue 8

Send FCC mailing list submissions to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/fcc
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

You can reach the person managing the list at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of FCC digest..."


Today's Topics:

  1.  Re: [WISPA] FCC Form 477 Due March 1st (Marlon K. Schafer)


--

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:24:50 -0800
From: "Marlon K. Schafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [WISPA FCC] Re: [WISPA] FCC Form 477 Due March 1st
To: "WISPA General List" 
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], FCC Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original

It was 400 wisps last I heard.

You HAVE to fill it out.  Doesn't do anything for you to not fill it out
anyway.

On this note.  I spent quite a bit of time on the phone with the 477 folks
today (we're working with them on a solution for those that don't have
excel).

It turns out it's not unusual for third parties to file for you.  You just
have to sign a form saying that the info from the other party is accurate.
Many small telcos have consultants or lawyers do it for them.

Having said that, we'll send them in for anyone that doesn't want to take
the time/can't figure it out/doesn't have the needed software.  I'll have 
my


gals ding your cc for $25 to cover their time.

I think this is something that wispa could also do for 

Re: [WISPA] Basic Mesh Theory

[Jack Unger]

Brian,

Exactly. You hit the nail on the head. The high noise levels combined 
with not enough license-free frequency space combined with 
unrealistically high traffic-handling expectations is going to doom most 
 public Wi-Fi-based municipal networks to extinction while at the same 
time, polluting the license-free spectrum that a responsible, RF-smart, 
wireless ISP could have used to deliver reliable service to some subset 
(limited by the available license-free frequency space) of that city's 
citizens.


Maybe the RF-smart WISPs will decide to reach out to their cities and 
make a case for working together to improve public wireless broadband 
access. If WISPs don't work with their city, then the city usually turns 
to a mesh vendor who will, in most cases, promise more than the 
technology (for the reasons you pointed out) can deliver. Even worse, 
large cities are turning to the Earthlinks and Googles of the world, as 
if the Earthlink or Google name is somehow going to bend physics and 
make these networks work. A big corporate name, as we all should know by 
now, does not change the way that RF propagates, or the way that 
interference and spectrum pollution slows down network performance.


Thank you for sharing your thoughts,
  jack

Brian Webster wrote:

Jack,
Let me jump in with some more thoughts on wireless mesh:

I agree with you that RF engineering and RF limitations are not being 
fully
considered in most mesh deployments. Most mesh designs I have seen are
theory based and assume the full use of the unlicensed spectrum at hand.
This will never be the case and therefore limits the overall capacity. I saw
an RFP from the city of Miami Beach and they had done a pre-survey of the
city and found the noise floor at 2.4 GHz at -70 db in most areas. Now how
is one going to deploy a mesh network with the ability to overcome that?
Typical answer is build more nodes closer to each other so these PDAs and
laptops get enough signal. This ignores the fact that all of these close
spaced nodes then create more noise for each other because they are mounted
at a height where they hear each other. In high density nodes even having 2
hops will bring these networks to their knees. There is not enough spectrum
to make it work and be able to load the network up. An 802.11b based system
can not deal with the hidden node problem effectively enough. Even if you do
have all the internode traffic on other frequencies at the high density
placement required in most cities, the spectrum limits are still a big issue
to have the channels to link all the nodes. I would still like to hear of a
mesh network from any manufacturer that has been deployed and has a high
density of users that are the kids of today. I want to see what bit torrent,
VOIP and audio streaming do to a mesh in multiple hops. While we can make
the argument that those services can be limited, that is only a band-aid
approach as today's society is going to expect to be able to use these
services in one form or another, it may take a while but it will be
necessary. The cellular companies are already creating the expectation for
this kids to be able to audio stream on demand. If someone has knowledge of
a loaded mesh network please let me know. Don't get me wrong, I love the
idea of mesh and wish it could work and want to see it work. It's just that
I've been in ham radio since 1989 and was in to the packet radio technology,
we as hams built networks where we dealt with all of these issues (I know it
was only 1200 baud but the problems remain).  There are two major problems
in mesh from my viewpoint. One, if you have a carrier sense based collision
avoidance system, you always have limited capacity because only one radio
can talk at a time (part of the HDX problem). Two, if you do not have a
carrier sense based system then you can overcome noise with a stronger
signal. This causes cell site shrinkage or breathing and changes the
coverage area. Most people deal with this by building transmitters closer to
each other, problem is that there is limited unlicensed spectrum which is
not enough room for most systems to deal with this.
I really would like to see mesh work and hope to be proven wrong. There 
is
a lot of promise in mesh implementations out there but until I have seen
them under residential internet use loads I remain skeptical.



Thank You,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com 



-Original Message-
From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 1:46 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Basic Mesh Theory


Jeromie,

You raise some good points... and here are some more differences between
Matt's fully-meshed WIRED network example and the real-world conditions
under which WIRELESS mesh networks are so often deployed today.

1) REROUTING - Only a node failure or a high peak traffic load would
normally force a routi

Re: [WISPA] [Fwd: Great news! We now have two unlicensed bills in the senate.]

[Scott Reed]

This is great news.  In looking at some info about the bills, I am wondering if want to ask for some of the whitespace to be made quasi-licensed, not unlicensed.  I would love to have some channels that I know will not be used by anyone within 50 miles of where I use them.  Not sure what it needs to be, but I would like some assurance that there will not be SOHO routers, etc. on every available channel.

Scott Reed 


Owner 


NewWays 


Wireless Networking 


Network Design, Installation and Administration 


www.nwwnet.net 




-- Original Message 
---

From: John Scrivner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 


To: wireless@wispa.org 


Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 


Sent: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:12:04 -0600 


Subject: [WISPA] [Fwd: Great news! We now have two unlicensed bills in the 
senate.] 



> Thank you, all of you, who worked with WISPA to get those comments on  

> 

the 04-186 issue. We all owe a special thanks to our new friend Frannie  

> 

Wellings at Free Press also. She has been absolutely key in helping make  

> 

this issue appear on the legislative radar. The dream may actually come  

> 

true here guys. Please read this in its entirety. I will likely be  
> 

calling on you again soon as this issue gains steam. 
> 

Kindest regards, 
> 

John Scrivner 
> 
> 

 Original Message  
> 

Subject:  Great news! We now have two unlicensed bills 
in the senate. 
> 

Date:  Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:48:36 -0500 
> 

From:  Frannie Wellings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

> 

To:  John Scrivner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> 

> 

Hi John, 
> 
> 

We've had some positive developments in the Senate and I thought you and  

> 

all of the wonderful folks from the WISP community who called and  
> 

e-mailed their senators would want to know.  
> 
> 

On Friday, February 17th, two bills were introduced in the Senate that  
> 

would help to open the white spaces. Both bills direct the Federal  
> 

Communications Commission to move quickly to free-up the empty broadcast  

> 

channels for unlicensed use so that they can be used for wireless broadband. 

> 
> 

Senators George Allen (R-VA), John Kerry (D-MA), John Sununu (R-NH) and  

> 

Barbara Boxer (D-CA) introduced a bi-partisan bill entitled the Wireless  

> 

Innovation Act of 2006 (WINN Act). Senate Commerce Committee Chairman  
> 

Ted Stevens (R-AK) introduced the American Broadband for Communities Act  

> 

(ABC Act). 
> 
> 

The two bills are very similar and ideally the Senators will join  
> 

together behind one bill. We're so lucky to have five senators taking  
> 

action here and expect more to sign on. This is really an important step  

> 

and the input from the WISP community has been remarkably valuable.   

> 

Please thank everyone who took the time to get involved.  They should be  

> 

encouraged that their calls matter and they really should know that  
> 

their comments in the 04-186 docket are really key.  I'm so glad that so  

> 

many WISPs submitted comments. 
> 
> 

I might be coming back to you soon asking for the WISPs to call their  
> 

senators in support of unlicensed spectrum as we see what happens with  
> 

the two bills.  Hopefully they will join into one bill then we have to  

> 

get that bill passed in the Commerce Committee and then the full Senate. 

> 
> 

Thanks again for all of your help. 
> 
> 

Best, 
> 
> 

Frannie 
> 
> 

P.S. - Here are some statements from the Senators... 
> 
> 

Senator Kerry has been an important leader on this issue, working hard  
> 

to introduce legislation to open the white spaces. He said of the  
> 

legislation, "Instead of just talking about it, we need to make  
> 

affordable broadband a reality everywhere Making this technology  
> 

available in all corners of our country is good for our families,  
> 

demonstrates the spirit of American innovation and promotes our success  

> 

in the global economy." 
> 
> 

Senator Allen said of the WINN Act, "This legislation will enable  
> 

entrepreneurs to provide affordable, competitive high-speed wireless  
> 

broadband services in areas that otherwise have no connectivity to  
> 

broadband Internet." 
> 
> 

Senator Stevens, the chairman of the key committee, stated: "Allowing  

> 

unlicensed operations in the broadcast band could play a significant  
> 

role in bringing wireless broadband and home networking to more of our  
> 

citizens by lowering costs, particularly in Alaska where connectivity is  

> 

so important due to our remoteness." 
--- End of Original Message 
---






-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

[WISPA] [Fwd: Great news! We now have two unlicensed bills in the senate.]

[John Scrivner]

Thank you, all of you, who worked with WISPA to get those comments on 
the 04-186 issue. We all owe a special thanks to our new friend Frannie 
Wellings at Free Press also. She has been absolutely key in helping make 
this issue appear on the legislative radar. The dream may actually come 
true here guys. Please read this in its entirety. I will likely be 
calling on you again soon as this issue gains steam.

Kindest regards,
John Scrivner


 Original Message 
Subject:Great news! We now have two unlicensed bills in the senate.
Date:   Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:48:36 -0500
From:   Frannie Wellings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: John Scrivner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>



Hi John,

We've had some positive developments in the Senate and I thought you and 
all of the wonderful folks from the WISP community who called and 
e-mailed their senators would want to know. 

On Friday, February 17th, two bills were introduced in the Senate that 
would help to open the white spaces. Both bills direct the Federal 
Communications Commission to move quickly to free-up the empty broadcast 
channels for unlicensed use so that they can be used for wireless broadband.


Senators George Allen (R-VA), John Kerry (D-MA), John Sununu (R-NH) and 
Barbara Boxer (D-CA) introduced a bi-partisan bill entitled the Wireless 
Innovation Act of 2006 (WINN Act). Senate Commerce Committee Chairman 
Ted Stevens (R-AK) introduced the American Broadband for Communities Act 
(ABC Act).


The two bills are very similar and ideally the Senators will join 
together behind one bill. We're so lucky to have five senators taking 
action here and expect more to sign on. This is really an important step 
and the input from the WISP community has been remarkably valuable.  
Please thank everyone who took the time to get involved.  They should be 
encouraged that their calls matter and they really should know that 
their comments in the 04-186 docket are really key.  I'm so glad that so 
many WISPs submitted comments.


I might be coming back to you soon asking for the WISPs to call their 
senators in support of unlicensed spectrum as we see what happens with 
the two bills.  Hopefully they will join into one bill then we have to 
get that bill passed in the Commerce Committee and then the full Senate.


Thanks again for all of your help.

Best,

Frannie


P.S. - Here are some statements from the Senators...

Senator Kerry has been an important leader on this issue, working hard 
to introduce legislation to open the white spaces. He said of the 
legislation, "Instead of just talking about it, we need to make 
affordable broadband a reality everywhere Making this technology 
available in all corners of our country is good for our families, 
demonstrates the spirit of American innovation and promotes our success 
in the global economy."


Senator Allen said of the WINN Act, "This legislation will enable 
entrepreneurs to provide affordable, competitive high-speed wireless 
broadband services in areas that otherwise have no connectivity to 
broadband Internet."


Senator Stevens, the chairman of the key committee, stated: "Allowing 
unlicensed operations in the broadcast band could play a significant 
role in bringing wireless broadband and home networking to more of our 
citizens by lowering costs, particularly in Alaska where connectivity is 
so important due to our remoteness."







begin:vcard
fn:John Scrivner
n:Scrivner;John
org:Mt. Vernon. Net, Inc.
adr;dom:PO Box 1582;;1 Dr Park Road Suite H1;Mt. Vernon;Il;62864
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:President
tel;work:618-244-6868
url:http://www.mvn.net/
version:2.1
end:vcard

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

[WISPA] More clarification from the FCC on the Form 477 Due March 1st

[Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181]

Hi All,

There's the latest that I've gotten from Ellen Burton at the FCC.  Hopefully 
this explains a bit better about which connections count for the form 477 
and who needs to fill them out.


If you have any questions please cc me off list.  It's looking like it's 
gonna be another really busy week so I might miss the onlist discussion for 
a few days at a time.


laters,
marlon

Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - 
From: "Ellen Burton" <>

To: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "477INFO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 6:32 PM
Subject: RE: [isp-wireless] Fw: [WISPA] FCC Form 477 Due March 1st


Marlon, I think you are answering the questions.  A few observations:


What about colo/hosting customers (in space leased from telco)? T1
(telco leased) customers?  (no? they should be reported by the telco?)



Customers linked to us via city-owned fiber?


FCC wants counts of connections TO paying customers' homes and business
locations that terminate THERE at "broadband" speeds. (You've gone over
what speeds are "broadband" in this data collection, Marlon.)  Do not
report "backhaul".  Do not report connections provided to other ISPs (or
to telcos or cable TV companies) that they use in the guts of their own
ISP network operations (or telecom or cable TV network operations).

If "City" operates like the PUD you work with, Marlon, "City" reports.
If "City" itself sells "broadband"-speed transmission service to the
family or business, and WISP sells them the "value added"
Internet-access capability that rides over that transmission service,
then "City" reports the connection.  (Similarly, if I bought DSL service
from Verizon but was addicted to AOL's welcome page and unique content,
I would pay extra to AOL and Verizon would report the DSL connection.)
If WISP is buying "dark fiber" from "City" on a long-term lease
arrangement, if that fiber goes all the way out to the paying customer's
home or business, and if WISP is adding the electronics that "light" the
fiber, then go ahead and report those connections.

"Telco" should report any of its T1, etc. it knows are connecting all
the way out to a home or business location and used to deliver
"broadband"-speed Internet-access service.  But this may look like plain
vanilla "special access" or "private line" to "Telco", in which case it
wouldn't report the connection to us.  So, if WISP Internet-access
service is riding over a service, such as T1, leased from "Bell",
"CLEC", or "long-distance wholesaler" -- and that T1 goes ALL the way to
WISP's paying customer's home or business -- then it's probably fine to
go ahead and report it. (That's "fine" in the sense that we won't have
double-counted connections when we add everything up.)  But I'm not sure
how relevant this is, since I'm under the impression -- perhaps
incorrectly -- that leased T1 etc. are mainly used for "backhaul".


Do cable companies (using wireless of a few varieties for backhaul to

the

CTMSs) need to fill this out?   But only for each customer, not for
backhaul links?


Cable TV companies mainly report cable modem service.  No one should
report "backhaul."



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

RE: [WISPA] Basic Mesh Theory

[Brian Webster]

Jack,
Let me jump in with some more thoughts on wireless mesh:

I agree with you that RF engineering and RF limitations are not being 
fully
considered in most mesh deployments. Most mesh designs I have seen are
theory based and assume the full use of the unlicensed spectrum at hand.
This will never be the case and therefore limits the overall capacity. I saw
an RFP from the city of Miami Beach and they had done a pre-survey of the
city and found the noise floor at 2.4 GHz at -70 db in most areas. Now how
is one going to deploy a mesh network with the ability to overcome that?
Typical answer is build more nodes closer to each other so these PDAs and
laptops get enough signal. This ignores the fact that all of these close
spaced nodes then create more noise for each other because they are mounted
at a height where they hear each other. In high density nodes even having 2
hops will bring these networks to their knees. There is not enough spectrum
to make it work and be able to load the network up. An 802.11b based system
can not deal with the hidden node problem effectively enough. Even if you do
have all the internode traffic on other frequencies at the high density
placement required in most cities, the spectrum limits are still a big issue
to have the channels to link all the nodes. I would still like to hear of a
mesh network from any manufacturer that has been deployed and has a high
density of users that are the kids of today. I want to see what bit torrent,
VOIP and audio streaming do to a mesh in multiple hops. While we can make
the argument that those services can be limited, that is only a band-aid
approach as today's society is going to expect to be able to use these
services in one form or another, it may take a while but it will be
necessary. The cellular companies are already creating the expectation for
this kids to be able to audio stream on demand. If someone has knowledge of
a loaded mesh network please let me know. Don't get me wrong, I love the
idea of mesh and wish it could work and want to see it work. It's just that
I've been in ham radio since 1989 and was in to the packet radio technology,
we as hams built networks where we dealt with all of these issues (I know it
was only 1200 baud but the problems remain).  There are two major problems
in mesh from my viewpoint. One, if you have a carrier sense based collision
avoidance system, you always have limited capacity because only one radio
can talk at a time (part of the HDX problem). Two, if you do not have a
carrier sense based system then you can overcome noise with a stronger
signal. This causes cell site shrinkage or breathing and changes the
coverage area. Most people deal with this by building transmitters closer to
each other, problem is that there is limited unlicensed spectrum which is
not enough room for most systems to deal with this.
I really would like to see mesh work and hope to be proven wrong. There 
is
a lot of promise in mesh implementations out there but until I have seen
them under residential internet use loads I remain skeptical.



Thank You,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com 



-Original Message-
From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 1:46 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Basic Mesh Theory


Jeromie,

You raise some good points... and here are some more differences between
Matt's fully-meshed WIRED network example and the real-world conditions
under which WIRELESS mesh networks are so often deployed today.

1) REROUTING - Only a node failure or a high peak traffic load would
normally force a routing path change on a fiber/copper network. On a
wireless mesh, routing path changes will also result from interference
caused by other same-network nodes, interference from other networks,
and interference from other wireless non-network sources. Routing path
changes will also be caused by the movement of obstructions and other
rf-reflective objects such as trees and vehicles.

2. CAPACITY - Fiber/copper networks typically start out with
high-capacity (compared to wireless) full-duplex links. Wireless mesh
networks start out with low-capacity half-duplex links.

3. CONNECTIVITY - Fiber/copper mesh network nodes have two or more paths
to other nodes. "Real-world" wireless mesh networks may contain nodes
that, in some cases (the traditional "mesh" definition not withstanding)
only have a path to one other node. For example, obstructions may block
paths to all but one (or even no) other nodes.

4. ENGINEERING - Fiber/copper mesh networks are typically properly
engineered for traffic-carrying capacity, QoS, latency, etc.
"Real-world" wireless mesh networks are typically deployed in near-total
ignorance of the Layer 1 (wireless layer) conditions. That's the great
attraction (IMHO) of  muni-mesh networking today. These networks are
thrown up in the belief that they don't need any Layer 1 design or
engineering 

[WISPA] airBand

[Peter R.]

Dallas' airBand Communications Inc. is earmarking some of its new $8 
million round of funding for an expansion into Austin.

http://www.bizjournals.com/industries/high_tech/internet/2006/02/27/austin_story6.html

Thank you.

Regards,

Peter
RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist
We Help ISPs Connect & Communicate
813.963.5884
_http://www.rad-info.net/seminar.htm_

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Basic Mesh Theory

[Matt Liotta]

Jack Unger wrote:

You raise some good points... and here are some more differences 
between Matt's fully-meshed WIRED network example and the real-world 
conditions under which WIRELESS mesh networks are so often deployed 
today.


My example actually used wireless P2P links, although it was meant to 
apply just as well to other mediums.


1) REROUTING - Only a node failure or a high peak traffic load would 
normally force a routing path change on a fiber/copper network. On a 
wireless mesh, routing path changes will also result from interference 
caused by other same-network nodes, interference from other networks, 
and interference from other wireless non-network sources. Routing path 
changes will also be caused by the movement of obstructions and other 
rf-reflective objects such as trees and vehicles.


Rerouting occurs regularly with a mesh wired network due to load 
balancing and QoS concerns. Although, I would agree with you that in a 
more traditional ring topology, rerouting would only occur on a node 
failure or overload with a wired network. I would also like to point out 
that someone of the issues you raise generally only occur on 
street-level networks. Using a wireless mesh network on rooftops or 
towers avoids many of the issues you raised. At the same time, many mesh 
vendors now use layer2 metrics such as rssi, signal to noise ratio, and 
RF frame errors in addition to layer3 metrics to select the best path. I 
believe these layer2 metrics are required for a proper street-level network.


2. CAPACITY - Fiber/copper networks typically start out with 
high-capacity (compared to wireless) full-duplex links. Wireless mesh 
networks start out with low-capacity half-duplex links.


What capacity any network starts with is up to folks deploying it and is 
not a function of medium.


3. CONNECTIVITY - Fiber/copper mesh network nodes have two or more 
paths to other nodes. "Real-world" wireless mesh networks may contain 
nodes that, in some cases (the traditional "mesh" definition not 
withstanding) only have a path to one other node. For example, 
obstructions may block paths to all but one (or even no) other nodes.


I believe almost any real-world network is going to have paths that 
aren't protected. For example, we have a building that served by a 
single fiber path because it is not economically to have diversity at 
that particular building. Every other building we have on fiber is 
connected via diverse paths.


4. ENGINEERING - Fiber/copper mesh networks are typically properly 
engineered for traffic-carrying capacity, QoS, latency, etc. 
"Real-world" wireless mesh networks are typically deployed in 
near-total ignorance of the Layer 1 (wireless layer) conditions. 
That's the great attraction (IMHO) of  muni-mesh networking today. 
These networks are thrown up in the belief that they don't need any 
Layer 1 design or engineering expertise and that this will allow for 
quick, widespread deployment. Last time I looked however, there was 
still "no free lunch". I predict that the muni
mesh networks that are "thrown up" today (Philadelphia will be a prime 
example, unless it's re-engineered correctly) will fail and fail 
miserably to meet the high expectations that have been raised like 
free or low-cost broadband for all. In addition, muni mesh networks 
today typically lack adequate traffic engineering and performance 
testing under load.


I believe you are entirely correct. However, that doesn't mean that a 
WISP can't properly engineer a mesh network. I would suggest the above 
is no different than folks stringing a bunch of Ethernet hubs together 
and expecting their LAN to work correctly.


I'm not saying that wireless mesh networks should never be used. There 
are certain (obstructed, short-link, low capacity) environments where 
they will be the best, most economical solution. I'm just saying that 
the false claims and marketing hype surrounding MOST (and let me 
repeat, MOST) of today's mesh networking claims, particularly mesh 
network nodes that contain just a single 2.4 GHz radio are going to 
come back to bite both the vendors and the cities that deploy these 
networks without sufficient wireless knowledge in the false belief 
that wireless mesh networks are just "plug-and-play".


Interestingly, Tropos the current poster child of wireless mesh networks 
is a single radio product, but all of their large networks have nodes 
backhauled by fixed wireless. In a sense, this means those networks are 
not based on a single radio. In fact, some market argue that using 
Canopy for backhauling Tropos --as is the case of Philadelphia-- is a 
better solution than to use an 802.11-based radio for backhaul like the 
multi-radio mesh network vendors do.


-Matt
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

[WISPA] BH selection

[chris cooper]

We are getting ready to upgrade some BH links.  The shots are pretty
short - all @3 miles or less.  Im wondering what folks select in terms
of performance and value.

chris

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

RE: [WISPA] Good Evening Folks

[G.Villarini]

John, I hope you didn't have too much Churrasco and Vino ...

Gino A. Villarini, 
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.aeronetpr.com
787.273.4143

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 12:36 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Good Evening Folks

WOW! Boggs is here! And Victoria! and Jack Unger! What happened? I went 
to Argentina and you guys all came to WISPA to hang out? I guess I need 
to run off to the other side of the planet more often. Now don't leave 
just cause I am back OK!
:-)
Welcome gang. Glad to see all of you.
Scriv



Roger Boggs wrote:

> Thanks Tom - and all others.  Good to hear from all the old names/faces.
>
> I've learned more about copper cable crimpers here in the last two 
> days than I have
> from any other wireLESS list I've been on in the last two years!
>
> :-)
>
>
>
> At 11:22 AM 2/23/2006, you wrote:
>
>> Its always good to hear a chime in from one of the original early 
>> guys in the game, now and then.
>> Lots of stuff happening here in WISP land.
>>
>> Tom DeReggi
>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Basic Mesh Theory

[Jeromie Reeves]

No im not falling for that trap. Your example used a 100% node to node 
connection rate, that is not reasonable for wireless.
2 to 5 radios/node is. This reduces the network update messages. My idea 
with a 3 radios is 1 BH AP, 1 BH CPE, 1 Client
AP. The BH CPE should be smart enough to know where nodes are physically 
and be able to have the BH CPE jump from
one of the 3 to 5 nodes it can see(this is optimal in my opinion). Cell 
sizes should be small with short high capacity bh's. This
is just a temp solution till the wisp can string copper to connect the 
APs. Pure wisps simply will not survive with out wired
infrastructure beyond the upstream. To this end mesh like Lonnie has 
included is a good step when used correctly. Locust
World mesh is ahead of the meshing game but there Wianna totally 
detracts from it.


Jeromie

Matt Liotta wrote:

My example used wireless P2P links, which has no inherent weakness 
over fiber P2P links from a topology point-of-view. It would appear 
you are falling into the same trap as others by forcing mesh to be 
something it is not. Mesh is just a network topology; no more, no 
less. Sure it is possible to come up with specific examples of 
wireless-based mesh networks being terrible ideas, but that doesn't 
mean there is anything wrong with mesh itself. I would argue that in 
almost all cases the topology is not what is at fault.


-Matt

Jeromie Reeves wrote:

There is a very big difference from fiber mesh and wireless mesh. 
Wireless is classicly a bunch of HDX links
where fiber is PtP links. Your example doesnt make it clear that the 
difference is what cause's 802.11[a|b|g]
mesh "suck" and fiber/copper mesh's "not suck". The solution is multi 
radio units that can select peers based
on more then just essid (channel, hop count to the edge, packet loss, 
ect)


Jeromie

Matt Liotta wrote:

Attached is a quick rundown of basic mesh theory that I put together 
in light of the recent thread. It hasn't been peer reviewed or 
edited, which I would normally do before sharing publicly. But since 
I only wrote because of a thread on this list I figured I would just 
share it. Feel free to pick it apart.


I do want to point out a couple of things though. First, this was 
written in a generic way only covering mesh as a theory. As written 
it can be applied to various transport technologies from fiber to 
wireless; though I do provide an example using wireless P2P links. 
Applying mesh theory to wireless P2MP or ad-hoc networks would 
require special coverage.


-Matt









--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/