great point! :)
Scott Reed wrote:
Who says the L in DSL must be Line? Call it Digital Subsciber Link
and it works for the customer and uses our normal language for the
radio connection.
Scott Reed
Owner
NewWays
Wireless Networking
Network Design, Installation and Administration
We conducted a few focus groups here. Most of the attendees were in the
18-24 yr. age bracket. It was amazing how many didn't identify with the
word broadband. The words they responded to best were 'high speed
internet Wireless was way down the list. Too much confusion with
cellular.
That
Title: Message
We
have them all over the place and they are great.We use them
onMDU/MTU deployments, residential, schools, and whole towns and
they work very well. The duel ethernet ports give you so many options to use
them for. For instance you can do a wireless backhaul to another cell
Charles,
After missing the backhaul bash this year, we had to perform our own
locally.
One of the products we tested was the Alvarion VL B28.
Its important to note, that the use of the Atheros Wifi chipset in the radio
was NOT a negative with the product.
The Alvarion had excellent
Very well stated, Tom.
I think there may reason to make some market distinction. In the part of rural Indiana I live in, servicing residential customers with wireless DSL is probably not bad marketing. Selling it that way to most businesses would not be so beneficial, especially when
Jeff:
If a system hasn't been through the interoperability testing, it ISN'T
WiMAX - at all. Absent the certification of interoperability, at best
what the vendors will be shipping and selling prior to achieving
certification is a proprietary product with perhaps some WiMAX
features.
Tom,
Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco
service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless?
Travis
Microserv
Tom DeReggi wrote:
Chris,
I agree with your finding.
But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or what
was the finding?)
For
The entire point of WiMAX may be interoperability, but from a fixed
wireless standpoint interoperability is meaningless. When and if mobile
WiMAX becomes interesting interoperability will be important. Until then
there is no need for it in a fixed wireless network, so the
certification badge
3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is equivalent to
1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD radios can have dynamic time
division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex link superior IMHO.
-Matt
Travis Johnson wrote:
Tom,
Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1
I pay a bit more than that but the ones I get from Pac Wireless are, by far,
the strongest one's I've seen on the market.
marlon
- Original Message -
From: Brian Rohrbacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Conversations over a new WISP Trade Organization wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, April
Matt,
This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps upload,
it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic, music sharing,
worms, etc.). With a wireless connection, even at 3.0Mbps, a 1.5Mbps
upload will bring it almost to a stop.
Travis
Microserv
Matt Liotta wrote:
It is true. Basic logic says that 3Mbps divided in half means you can
get 1.5Mbps. Further, find any device that can have strict time division
partitioning set and test it yourself.
-Matt
Travis Johnson wrote:
Matt,
This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps upload,
it
Higher ARPU WISPs in the business are selling their services as WiMAX
-Charles
---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of KyWiFi LLC
Sent: Tuesday,
snip
That is correct, however those companies are expected to be shipping
product ( and are taking pre orders ) that will comply with the
testing whenever the gods at wimaxforum decide to get off their
collective arses and certify 5.8. Airspan for example, already has
wimax 4.9 product
Hi Jeff,
Out of curiosity, since QoS base WiMAX certification currently are
mutually exclusive, how does having QoS allow one manufacturer to have
product that's more WiMAX than another (not to say that QoS makes a
product better, but that's a whole different argument)
-Charles
There is no such thing right now as unlicensed WiMAX (e.g., no way today to
officially certify 5.8 Ghz WiMAX)
So you *could* say that Motorola, Alvarion, Trango, Tranzeo, Mikrotik,
StarOS, etc all have roadmaps to WiMAX just like Airspan Aperto
-Charles
snip
Maybe we should be branding our service as Wi-Fiber. or Maybe Ethernet
Internet Access (of course like end users will know what Ethernet means.)
/snip
Spend trying to build a new brand around Wi-Fiber or just ride Intel /
WiMAX Forum's Marketing machine...
Here's the thing, chances
Tom DeReggi wrote:
I've been plaqued by this problem, as my company name is...
RapidDSL. It gets me the leads, but it also starts every sales call
out with why I'm charging more than $50 a month for my service, that I
generally get $150-$500 a month for.
I'm seeing this company name as a
Matt:
The capabilities of WiMAX ALREADY exist in the proprietary products
of Alvarion, Redline, Aperto Networks, etc. WiMAX is a standardization
of the lowest-common-denominator of those capabilities, with certified
interoperability.
If you've waited this long for WiMAX capabilities, and
We don't, but there is no need to.
3 mbps half duplex = 1.5 mbps full duplex.
(Actually bettter, because when upload speed not used, its there to be used
for high speeds in the other direction.)
Our router bandwidth management allows setting speed in both directions
(using HTB).
Its one
I didn't mean to imply that I am waiting on the technology. We use
Orthogon today, which provides us all the capabilities of WiMAX and then
some. However, the price point simply doesn't compete with Canopy for
last mile use, which is why we continue to use it. We are waiting on the
I am troubleshooting a major problem in which (intermittently) we will have
good connectivity TO the AP, but on the client side of the AP, our customers are
having seriously slow connections or timeouts. Ping times TO the AP are fine
constantly 10ms-40ms, but beyond the AP (client-side),
Travis,
We do not see that on our network.
One provider's usage rarely has an effect on the others, that can be
significantly noticed.
When bandwidth management is done at the first hop at every cell site, this
does not happen.
I'm referring to using Trango 5830s.
You are however bringing up
Agreed- interop is a great thing steve, but the problem is that
currently no wimax profile requires any level of interop beyond
simple bridging, which most operators will find that they want to use
the QOS features so they can sell services such as voip.
are these products i mentioned using
On Apr 5, 2006, at 9:46 AM, Charles Wu wrote:
snip
That is correct, however those companies are expected to be shipping
product ( and are taking pre orders ) that will comply with the
testing whenever the gods at wimaxforum decide to get off their
collective arses and certify 5.8. Airspan for
Okay,
we could both agree that a simple bridge mode system with no level of
QOS,
no ability to segment traffic flows between CBR/CIR/BE, would be
pretty pointless
right? then it would be simple best effort only services you could
sell on a given
link or base station. So while company A may
Actually,
I would argue that the great thing about wimax is not really interop-
its lower costs on CPE. Until there is an agreed upon profile for
WImax QOS, then literally everyone who buys wimax base stations will
use the same manufacturers client devices. The only major difference
is
On a good system like canopy or polling (nstream or turbocell) I have been able
to run a FDX style link, downloading 1.5Mbps while uploading 1.5Mbps, using
Nstream I have done 15Mbps pseudo-fdx
Nstream2 allows a true FDX channel but I believe only PTP
Dan Metcalf
Wireless Broadband Systems
Our noc is connected w/ a 5.8Ghz PTP Link. We do streaming audio from that NOC
while also providing internet access.. During the day the streaming audio hits
over 2Mbps and during that same time we pulling 2Mbps to 4Mbps from the
internet.
The system is definitely HDX but has no problem sending
BellSouth, the second-largest owner of 2.5GHz spectrum in the U.S.,
controls spectrum in most of the 50 largest markets, according to
published reports. It also has substantial 2.3GHz spectrum (acquired in
auctions in 1997). SBC Communications also gained a large amount of
2.3GHz spectrum when
How do all you guys in NEC enforcement areas handle the grounding
issue? Details please. Currently I am not in an enforcement area, but
that's about to change.
Scratching head,
Jason
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
Does anyone have one 2.4 GHz to 900 MHz up/down converter that they are
willing to part with? I need one to expand the coverage of a 2.4 GHz
spectrum analyzer down to 900 MHz (receive only).
Thanks in advance,
jack
--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com,
I am currently waiting on 2 distributors who I'm contacted about getting
cat5 with a grounding wire (either #10,12, or 14). They are getting a
hold of the manufacturers and are going to see if they will make it and
what the min commit it. I will let everyone know.
Brian
Jason wrote:
How
Anyone know anything about Motorola's 802.11 mesh products? Are they
rebranding someone else's gear (as it appears they did with Orthogon)
or building their own? I haven't heard anything about it, but just
found the marketing on my most recent visit to canopywireless.com.
Any success stories with
Dont hold me to it but I thought for sure they were using Tropos
- Original Message -
From: Dylan Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 6:03 PM
Subject: [WISPA] motorola mesh
Anyone know anything about Motorola's 802.11 mesh
On the surface it sounds like a good idea. Im no electrician, nor do I play
one on television. Is it a good idea to have the ground in the same sheath
as the conductors? Im thinking in a lightning strike- would it be better to
shunt the surge onto the tower and tower ground asap or run it all
John,
It's now April 5th. How are you faring with the Cisco mesh gear?
On 3/1/06, John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Cisco radios can do 4.9-5.8 GHz. I am assuming that 5.3-5.7 will be
available in a update, since 4.9 is available now. Cisco apparently only has
6-8 deployments so
I'm about to get my
first WISP up and running but the major factor that's holding me back is the
initial cost of the CPE's. I've decided to go with WaveWireless (formerly
WaveRider) 900Mhz but the lowest prices are around $350 or so. I've been
thinking of pitching the service by saying the
Travis,
I'd love to perform your test.
Send me the CD.
Understanding that I will provision the customer at 3 mbps on our first hop
router, using Trango 10mbps PtMP radio link, and that your CD test will
generate 1500mbps of data transfer.
There are three seperate issues here. 1) One user's
Joshua,
We originally charged a $200 install and a
$150 install for businessThat was 4 years ago and was based on DSL just
becoming available in my area.
Since then, cable has become available.
Both DSL and cable have become cheaper and offer free installs.
Even with DSL and cable
If it would stop raining..
We don't have it all deployed yet, but here is what we know.
They take a long time to boot, maybe 5 minutes.
The range is poor, they are supposed to put out 26 dBm per Cisco, but they only
put out 14 dBm per the controller interface. We questioned Cisco on
Be tough to get a 4 year contract. Plus how are you going to enforce
these contracts?
Who owns the CPE after install?
Who takes care of maintenance?
How about a Priority install charge to help off-set the CPE?
Regards,
Peter
RAD-INFO, Inc.
4isps.com
marketingideaguy.com
Joshua M. Andrews
42 matches
Mail list logo
