[WISPA] TV spectrum
All, Could this be good news for WISP's? Any thoughts on how this may affect the wireless industry? New spectrum legislation crafted By Dan O'Shea Apr 5, 2006 12:02 PM Five members of the U.S. House of Representatives have announced new legislation that allow broadband wireless carriers and other companies to use television spectrum in the band between 608 Mhz and 614 MHz for unlicensed wireless services. The legislation was introduced by Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and his co- sponsors Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), Paul Gillmor (R-Ohio) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.). The Telecommunications Industry Association applauded the move. Agency president Matthew Flanigan, said in a statement, TIA believes that these proposals could provide for more efficient and effective use of the television broadcast spectrum, as well as have significant benefits for the public by increasing competition in the wireless broadband industry and providing incentives for the development of new and innovative broadband devices and services for businesses and consumers. http://telephonyonline.com/wireless/regulatory/House_spectrum_bill_040506/ Original press release below; http://www.tiaonline.org/business/media/press_releases/2006/PR06-31.cfm Regards, Dawn --- --- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
Hadn't thought about it that way...so our 5 Mbps/1 Mbps link would be a 6 Mbps link. Yep, a name is an important marketing tool. I think our name St. Louis Broadband helps us out (stlbroadband.com and stlouisbroadband.com), but if we ever want to expand our territory, we would have a problem. Victoria -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 1:14 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband 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 marketing trick that works to our advantage. We advertise symetrical, not simultaneous Full Duplex. That means we have same speed both directions, not top speed in both directions at the same time. So a client pushing 2 mbps down and 1 mbps up, would equal a 3 mbps link. We can advertise speeds up to the max speed someone can acheive in a specific direction. Because most clients do not use equal speed in both direction, nuch of their Full Duplex bandwidth just goes wasted and unused on T1s. So 3 mbps is perceived as twice the speed than their T1 for those that don;t catch the difference between full and half duplex. And a great replacement for their T1. Those that do understand the difference, well, we are still offering equivellent capacity. What also works to our advantage is that T1 providers also generally don't offer guaranteed bandwidth either. A T1 might be as low as $500 a month, but if the buy a true MCI guaranteed bandwidth circuit, paying 95%tile, they'd easilly be paying over $1000 buck for the T1 link. So technically competitor's T1s are MIR bandwidth under their SLA. So we also spec our product at MIR. We stay away from any term like Best Effort associated with commodity services like DSL. The second we take out local loop costs, we can always be more cost effective, with out sacrificing quality on the link at the back end, because we actually ahve a lower front end cost. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 11:52 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband 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 example, its not only important to determine what terms the customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning they have for those terms that they identify with. For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed Internet was the term that the consumer best identified with. However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much with DialUP service as they do with Broadband. And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL or Cable services. Why do we want to create the image of offering commodity services, design for huge over subscription, low repair SLAs, and best effort? Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as setting standards for quality? We don't want to be identified as that. We want to be something better. Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi services to your clients, and you are striving to be a competitor to Cable and DSL quality, sure Brand the product as DSL, and its a good thing. And please do so, so your wireless is not identified with what we offer, branding high quality fiber extension and T1 replacement services. In your focus group did you get any results on their perception of quality that they associated with Cable and DSL or the term High Speed Internet? Would you suggest branding your T1 or Fiber offerings as High Speed Internet, since customers best identify with that term? 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.) Its a tough call because if we called our service Fiber or T1 we'd most likely be liars based on their true definitions. Nothing exists realting to quality for us to piggy back on. All though Broadband may not be as well recognized, its doesn;t associate us with Telcos or Cable companies necessarilly. Broadband is truthfully defined as a general term to cover any media type of delivery of Internet Access. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: chris cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA
[WISPA] OT - Wish I owned this domain name...
I think this shows how much wireless has grown over the years, as well as the price of domain names really getting some big bucks. http://www.ereleases.com/pr/20060405009.html I have invested in domains and currently have about 300, most of which are .us ext. I think I have some good wireless domains if anyone is interested in helping develop, like WISPPromotions.com, WISPCalendar.com, WISP-Chat.com, WiFi-Chat.com, WiMaxSwitch.com/.net, but nothing like GoWireless.com. ~V~ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Cisco Mesh Equipment
Define monitoring? Up down status, or real time and historical data of link characteristics and health? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 12:23 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cisco Mesh Equipment 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 this, and they calimed that the 26 dB was the total of transmit + receive. We are going to try to get an engineer to tell us what the radio is and what the REAL output power is. If the power is truly on 14 dBm, that is not good. The 2.4 radios ar supposed to put out 25 dBm, but the controller interface is only showing 17 dBm max. We are hoping that this is a limit in the BIOS that can be changed. We had 1 link at 3600 feet with 1 tree in the way. 7.5 dB omni on each end and no link. As soon as another engineer put a 1500 (Mesh AP) in his car and got between the other two, the link came up. This is with one end on a firehouse at about 35 feet and the other on a light pole at about 26 feet or so. The monitoring is not what we expected-there doesn't seem to be any way to monitor the 5 GHz backhauls, but the monitoring of the 2.4 is very good. We are waiting on the city to put in some long-range ethernet links between the stoplights so we will actually have something to bridge. They currently only use 5.7-5.8 GHz, but 4.9 is supposed to be available later this year. John -Original Message- From: Dylan Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2006 06:09 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment 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 far, and they are releasing updates regularly. Our install is tentatively scheduled for March 14th, so I should be able to post info shortly thereafter. Best, -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- 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] TV spectrum
Not at 6 mhz of spectrum only. Where did the rest of it go? WISPs need atleast 30 Mhz. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org; isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 6:16 AM Subject: [WISPA] TV spectrum All, Could this be good news for WISP's? Any thoughts on how this may affect the wireless industry? New spectrum legislation crafted By Dan O'Shea Apr 5, 2006 12:02 PM Five members of the U.S. House of Representatives have announced new legislation that allow broadband wireless carriers and other companies to use television spectrum in the band between 608 Mhz and 614 MHz for unlicensed wireless services. The legislation was introduced by Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and his co- sponsors Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), Paul Gillmor (R-Ohio) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.). The Telecommunications Industry Association applauded the move. Agency president Matthew Flanigan, said in a statement, TIA believes that these proposals could provide for more efficient and effective use of the television broadcast spectrum, as well as have significant benefits for the public by increasing competition in the wireless broadband industry and providing incentives for the development of new and innovative broadband devices and services for businesses and consumers. http://telephonyonline.com/wireless/regulatory/House_spectrum_bill_040506/ Original press release below; http://www.tiaonline.org/business/media/press_releases/2006/PR06-31.cfm Regards, Dawn --- --- -- 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] CPE Cost Ideas Needed
Thats what we do - - - No contracts and if we can use a Tranzeo TR-CPQ to connect thjem it is a $200.00 set up/install fee + router ($50.00) and first months service ($50.00) and we maintain ownership of the CPE. If it takes a Trango 900MHz CPE to catch them - - the install/setup fee goes to $400.00 :-) and I still own the CPE Mac Dearman Maximum Access, LLC. Authorized Barracuda Reseller MikroTik RouterOS Certified www.inetsouth.com www.mac-tel.us www.RadioResponse.org (Katrina Relief) Rayville, La. 318.728.8600 318.303.4228 318.303.4229 - Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 12:25 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CPE Cost Ideas Needed 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 wrote: 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 following: Option 1: 1 Year Contract and install is $295.95. Option 2: 2 Year Contract and install is $195.95. Option 3: 3 Year Contract and install is $99.95. Option 4: 4 Year Contract and install is FREE. Anybody else have any suggestions to help offset the initial cost per customer in this regard? Thanks in advance. Sincerely, Joshua M. Andrews Support Corps of America www.SupportCorps.us http://www.SupportCorps.us -- 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] CPE Cost Ideas Needed
We were in a similar position when we started our WISP in 2002, and we went exclusively with Waverider CPE ($500+ at that time) and we found that the market would not bear more than $200 setup (we now only charge $149). It was/is also our thinking that a contract to lock them into service wouldn't make sense either. If they don't want to pay the last 8 months of service because they cannot afford it, because they don't like the service, or whatever, then I wouldn't help grow the business by suing them, so a contract wouldn't make sense. We do have them sign a limited liability agreement, where they agree to, among other things, return the CPE or pay us $995.00 when they disconnect. They also agree not to break any laws or intentionally cause any problems with the service, etc etc. I also don't think people want a LOT of complicated options when they sign up for service. I think you will be better off offering a $200 setup and $49/mo (we started at $59 residential, and dropped to $39) for service. After the 15 or 20 customers are online that pay for the upstream broadband (depending on what you are paying), you can have the CPE pay for itself 4 months if you don't outsource the installations. Then, 8 Customers will buy 1 CPE/month, and 64 will buy 8/mo and so on. The numbers don't always exactly work that way, since employees want to be paid, the van will need gas, tires and oil, email servers will need service/repair/upgrades, and some customers will need a $100 worth of masts, cables, guy wires, etc to get them installed. What you may want to consider is giving a free/discounted installation if the customer will pre-pay 12 months service. We offer a 10% discount on the service/installation if they pre-pay 12 months. What we learned: We wished we had implemented lower cost 802.11b AP/CPE's alongside the Waverider gear sooner. We waited over a year before we did that, and figured out that we didn't have to wait 12 to 18 months for a customer to be cash flow positive. Now, its less than 5 months. Less than 1 if I don't outsource the installation ($125 to contractor), and I put it in myself, and collect the $150 setup + 1st month service and put in a $120 CPE. Pete Davis NoDial.net Joshua M. Andrews wrote: 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 following: Option 1: 1 Year Contract and install is $295.95. Option 2: 2 Year Contract and install is $195.95. Option 3: 3 Year Contract and install is $99.95. Option 4: 4 Year Contract and install is FREE. Anybody else have any suggestions to help offset the initial cost per customer in this regard? Thanks in advance. Sincerely, Joshua M. Andrews Support Corps of America www.SupportCorps.us http://www.SupportCorps.us No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/301 - Release Date: 4/4/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum
Please read below and see my remarks on this feeble attempt to help Americans. New spectrum legislation crafted By Dan O'Shea Apr 5, 2006 12:02 PM Five members of the U.S. House of Representatives have announced new legislation that allow broadband wireless carriers and other companies to use television spectrum in the band between 608 Mhz and 614 MHz for unlicensed wireless services. The legislation was introduced by Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and his co- sponsors Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), Paul Gillmor (R-Ohio) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.). The Telecommunications Industry Association applauded the move. Agency president Matthew Flanigan, said in a statement, TIA believes that these proposals could provide for more efficient and effective use of the television broadcast spectrum, as well as have significant benefits for the public by increasing competition in the wireless broadband industry and providing incentives for the development of new and innovative broadband devices and services for businesses and consumers. http://telephonyonline.com/wireless/regulatory/House_spectrum_bill_040506/ My thoughts: The House bill to give us a single 6 MHz channel is far too little to help and could even be regarded as a slap in the face if you have been starved for the quality spectrum we need to do the job as we all have for so long. This does not match the legislation being introduced by the Senate at all and could lead to making this a dead issue instead of helping bring broadband to the masses as intended. It does not surprise me that the TIA has applauded this as it serves their purposes of holding our efforts back. They would prefer to either have only licensed spectrum which acts as a means of keeping competitors out of the wireless space or as we see here they would like to see competing offers from the Senate and House so that the true opportunity as outlined in the FCC 04-186 is locked in debate and taken off the table to meet some compromise or worse yet the effort is killed from having too little common ground to pass a vote from both sides of Congress. If any of you are in the states of Washington, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Ohio or Virginia I certainly hope you will call your Reps today and let them know that 6 MHz of spectrum is like giving a spoonful of water to a man walking in the desert for days. The parched man will surely take it and wonder why you even bothered to mock him with such a paltry offer. This is terrible news and we need to act quickly. The FCC has created the logical platform to move ahead in allowing the unlicensed use of unused television channels in its 04-186 rulemaking which it has allowed to leave in a limbo state and tasking the FCC with passing their own rulemaking is the logical way to move forward and help the broadband industry. Believing that one 6 MHz channel for broadband use is helpful is just plain laughable and shows a complete lack of understanding of our problems in helping deliver broadband to rural and under-served citizens who are begging for access to broadband and cannot receive it from any source. These unused television channels will give them broadband. A single 6 MHz channel is not a true effort to help and is insulting to the public. Without several channels to allow for frequency reuse the single channel forces providers to either segment the single channel into minuscule sizes delivering substandard speeds or face almost certain interference as multiple attempts to use the same small 6 MHz channel space would interfere with adjacent efforts from other operators doing the same. In short this is not worthy of consideration and should be scrapped. The only logical step is for the House of Representatives to pass legislation which will task the FCC to pass its 04-186 rulemaking which will open unused television channels up for use as unlicensed carriage of broadband to Americans. This is not just important, it is mandatory if we are to truly close the Digital Divide which is now wider than ever due to a lack of quality spectrum able to do the job. The problem is not that rural Americans do not want broadband or that private enterprise has failed them in some way, the problem is that the thousands of Wireless Internet Service Providers who serve them lack the necessary spectrum to bring their citizens the broadband they are begging to receive. Now I want you guys, all of you guys, to go to http://www.house.gov/writerep/ and write a letter to your Rep. The site will find your rep by zip code for you. Even if you are not in the states where this laughable legislation originated you need to speak out. We obviously do not want to alienate the whole House of Representatives but we do need them to understand that this is not going to come close to doing the job they are trying to do and that this is not going to fix anything unless we have access to a larger amount of
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
I'll take a wireless link over a T1 any day if for no other reason then the wireless link will be more reliable. You're never going to suffer the loss of a link due to a backhoe or a drunk driver hitting a pole, which are the two most likely reasons for a T1 failure. Personally, I believe that fixed wireless is truly better and I would argue someone has no business working for a fixed wireless company if they don't believe it too. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Tom, The original postition and question was are you comparing your wireless service to telco T1. After your posts, it's obvious that you are... and I would argue that a land-based line will ALWAYS be better than wireless, with all other factors being the same. Now, if you are able to save the customer $xx per month by using wireless, then there is an advantage. If you can provide other services, then there is an advantage. However, comparing a half-duplex system to a full-duplex system and saying they are the same is... not correct. If you had the choice between running a full-duplex wireless system and half-duplex, which would you do? :) If you could purchase a land-based connection to go from point A to point B for $500 per month, or rent roof-top space at point A and point B for $500 per month, which would you choose? ;) Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: 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 connection able to effect another user's connection, and 2) On one particular link, their upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under normal opperation within acceptable use policy, and 3) On one particular link, their upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under a Denial of Service situation. With any type of broadband, if the capacity of a link is saturated, it results in packet loss and performance loss for the individual's connection. Its up to the end user to protect against violation of acceptable use policy like viruses that deliver abnormal PPS, or any queueing needed to allow fair priority of data type on the LAN side of the link. These problems can also all be solved with a feature rich client side router before plugging to our Broadband, regardless of the Duplex of our link. In other words, The same performance problems will result on a full Duplex link, if one direction gets saturated, and that same direction traffic will result in packet loss, and all communication generally requires some communication in each of the direction for traffic to flow in one direction. So where the problem may be worse with Half Duplex, the problem still exists in some capacity with Full Duplex. I'd argue that its possible to generate enough pps on a Full Duplex Link in one direction, that will overload the processing power of the radio CPU, and the other direction still getting horrible performance even with no traffic passing in that other direction even though Full Duplex, because no CPU time is available for it. Unless each direction has its own CPU, which is not likely. This is an issue of whether the radio used can handle the number of PPS sent to it in high DOS situations. I'd also argue under this situation 4000 pps 1500 mbps, that the customer's use of the circuit in any capacity when a DOS of that type was happening, would be not possible, and justify immediate tech action to resolve, regardless of whether one direction of traffic was usable. I;ve never met a company where having one direction traffic only was acceptable or tolerable. You did however hit on an important clarification. A half duplex link can not distinguish on its own wether upload or download traffic at a given moment is priority or more important to the subscriber. When there is a large demand for legitimate broadband, why would the data in one direction be any more priority than the other, when capacity is reached? Either way the customer is compromised in throughout needs one direction or another. Doesn't it really mean that the customer needs more total bandwidth? Is it any more important that mail was sent and not received? Full Duplex is one way for a customer to solve that problem, and reserve bandwdith in one direction. But does that really solve the problem? Maybe if the circuit's intended use is for 100% VOIP a symetrical application. But not many circuits are used for that purpose. And if I really wanted to, I can set my bandwdith management to be seperate for upload and download, and immulate a Full Duplex connection, over the half duplex link. But what it really says to me is the importance that customers have front end queuing / IP prioritization when using bi-directional sensitive applications such as VOIP.
Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum
just fyi, that link doesn't find anything. M John Scrivner wrote: SNIP Now I want you guys, all of you guys, to go to http://www.house.gov/writerep/ and write a letter to your Rep. The site will find your rep by zip code for you. Even if you are not in the states where this laughable legislation originated you need to speak out. We obviously do not want to alienate the whole House of Representatives but we do need them to understand that this is not going to come close to doing the job they are trying to do and that this is not going to fix anything unless we have access to a larger amount of quality spectrum. So please go now and make this happen, right now, in the next 10 minutes. Scriv Dawn DiPietro wrote: All, Could this be good news for WISP's? Any thoughts on how this may affect the wireless industry? Regards, Dawn --- --- --- [This e-mail was scanned for viruses by our AntiVirus Protection System] -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum
Yep, I just used it to write my representative. Scott Reed Owner NewWays Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration www.nwwnet.net -- Original Message --- From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 10:20:44 -0400 Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum Mario, It worked for me. Regards, Dawn Mario Pommier wrote: just fyi, that link doesn't find anything. M John Scrivner wrote: SNIP Now I want you guys, all of you guys, to go to http://www.house.gov/writerep/ and write a letter to your Rep. The site will find your rep by zip code for you. Even if you are not in the states where this laughable legislation originated you need to speak out. We obviously do not want to alienate the whole House of Representatives but we do need them to understand that this is not going to come close to doing the job they are trying to do and that this is not going to fix anything unless we have access to a larger amount of quality spectrum. So please go now and make this happen, right now, in the next 10 minutes. Scriv Dawn DiPietro wrote: All, Could this be good news for WISP's? Any thoughts on how this may affect the wireless industry? Regards, Dawn --- --- --- [This e-mail was scanned for viruses by our AntiVirus Protection System] --- --- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ --- 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/
Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum
Here is the text of the message I sent to Honorable John Shimkus of Illinois: The current House Spectrum Bill brought forth by Inslee and others to give us a single 6 MHz channel is far too little to help Americans gain access to broadband options and could even be regarded as a slap in the face if you have been starved for the quality spectrum needed to do the job as we all have for so long. This does not match the legislation being introduced by the Senate Commerce Committee at all and could lead to making this a dead issue instead of helping bring broadband to the masses as intended. It does not surprise me that the Telephone Industry Association has applauded this as it serves their purposes of holding our efforts back. They would prefer to either have only licensed spectrum which acts as a means of keeping multiple competitors out of the wireless space or as we see here they would like to see competing offers from the Senate and House so that the true opportunity as outlined in the FCC 04-186 is locked in debate and taken off the table to meet some compromise or worse yet the effort is killed from having too little common ground to pass a vote from both sides of Congress. This bill is like giving a spoonful of water to a man walking in the desert for days. The parched man will surely take it and wonder why you even bothered to mock him with such a paltry offer. The FCC has created the logical platform to move ahead in allowing the unlicensed use of unused television channels in its 04-186 rulemaking which it has allowed to leave in a limbo state and tasking the FCC with passing their own rulemaking is the logical way to move forward and help the broadband industry. Believing that one 6 MHz channel for broadband use is helpful is just plain laughable and shows a complete lack of understanding of our problems in helping deliver broadband to rural and under-served citizens who are begging for access to broadband and cannot receive it from any source. These unused television channels will give them broadband. A single 6 MHz channel as proposed in the House Spectrum Bill is not a true effort to help and is insulting to the public. Without several channels to allow for frequency reuse the single channel forces providers to either segment the single channel into minuscule sizes delivering substandard speeds or face almost certain interference as multiple attempts to use the same small 6 MHz channel space would interfere with adjacent efforts from other operators doing the same. In short this is not worthy of consideration and should be scrapped. The only logical step is for the House of Representatives to pass legislation which will task the FCC to pass its 04-186 rulemaking which will open unused television channels up for use as unlicensed carriage of broadband to Americans. This is not just important, it is mandatory if we are to truly close the Digital Divide which is now wider than ever due to a lack of quality spectrum able to do the job. The problem is not that rural Americans do not want broadband or that private enterprise has failed them in some way, the problem is that the thousands of Wireless Internet Service Providers who serve them lack the necessary spectrum to bring their citizens the broadband they are begging to receive. Honorable John Shimkus, as representative of our mainly rural district in Illinois, I am begging you to please consider drafting and submitting a competing bill to the House which will task the FCC with finishing what they started and passing the 04-186 rulemaking which is the path to universal access to low-cost broadband opportunity for all Americans. I will gladly buy a plane ticket and come to Washington to speak in person on this important issue if you so desire. Please act quickly so we may see the promise of broadband to all Americans soon. Tasking the FCC to pass 04-186 would do more to stimulate broadband availability than anything ever proposed by our legislature. Please take the lead in this important endeavor and let's give rural citizens equal access to the Digital American Dream. Say NO to the current House Spectrum Bill and submit a competing proposal that has a chance to do some good. Respectfully, John Scrivner -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Cisco Mesh Equipment
All of the above The controller has RSSI, several graphs, both current and historical, other APs seen, and a few other things we haven't completely dug into. When we get back down there, I will get a list of all the monitoring it supports and give a better review. John -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2006 05:56 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cisco Mesh Equipment Define monitoring? Up down status, or real time and historical data of link characteristics and health? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 12:23 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cisco Mesh Equipment 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 this, and they calimed that the 26 dB was the total of transmit + receive. We are going to try to get an engineer to tell us what the radio is and what the REAL output power is. If the power is truly on 14 dBm, that is not good. The 2.4 radios ar supposed to put out 25 dBm, but the controller interface is only showing 17 dBm max. We are hoping that this is a limit in the BIOS that can be changed. We had 1 link at 3600 feet with 1 tree in the way. 7.5 dB omni on each end and no link. As soon as another engineer put a 1500 (Mesh AP) in his car and got between the other two, the link came up. This is with one end on a firehouse at about 35 feet and the other on a light pole at about 26 feet or so. The monitoring is not what we expected-there doesn't seem to be any way to monitor the 5 GHz backhauls, but the monitoring of the 2.4 is very good. We are waiting on the city to put in some long-range ethernet links between the stoplights so we will actually have something to bridge. They currently only use 5.7-5.8 GHz, but 4.9 is supposed to be available later this year. John -Original Message- From: Dylan Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2006 06:09 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment 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 far, and they are releasing updates regularly. Our install is tentatively scheduled for March 14th, so I should be able to post info shortly thereafter. Best, -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum
John, Well said. I agree 6 mhz, a slap in the face. I understood, Brad Larson's comment that 50Mhz is a lot to be thankk full for, when Marlon was suggesting that 50 Mhz was not enough, in critiquing Marlon's proposal. We learned with 900Mhz that we can do a lot with 30 Mhz, although tough. But 6 Mhz, useless, and pointless. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 9:54 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum Please read below and see my remarks on this feeble attempt to help Americans. New spectrum legislation crafted By Dan O'Shea Apr 5, 2006 12:02 PM Five members of the U.S. House of Representatives have announced new legislation that allow broadband wireless carriers and other companies to use television spectrum in the band between 608 Mhz and 614 MHz for unlicensed wireless services. The legislation was introduced by Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and his co- sponsors Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), Paul Gillmor (R-Ohio) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.). The Telecommunications Industry Association applauded the move. Agency president Matthew Flanigan, said in a statement, TIA believes that these proposals could provide for more efficient and effective use of the television broadcast spectrum, as well as have significant benefits for the public by increasing competition in the wireless broadband industry and providing incentives for the development of new and innovative broadband devices and services for businesses and consumers. http://telephonyonline.com/wireless/regulatory/House_spectrum_bill_040506/ My thoughts: The House bill to give us a single 6 MHz channel is far too little to help and could even be regarded as a slap in the face if you have been starved for the quality spectrum we need to do the job as we all have for so long. This does not match the legislation being introduced by the Senate at all and could lead to making this a dead issue instead of helping bring broadband to the masses as intended. It does not surprise me that the TIA has applauded this as it serves their purposes of holding our efforts back. They would prefer to either have only licensed spectrum which acts as a means of keeping competitors out of the wireless space or as we see here they would like to see competing offers from the Senate and House so that the true opportunity as outlined in the FCC 04-186 is locked in debate and taken off the table to meet some compromise or worse yet the effort is killed from having too little common ground to pass a vote from both sides of Congress. If any of you are in the states of Washington, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Ohio or Virginia I certainly hope you will call your Reps today and let them know that 6 MHz of spectrum is like giving a spoonful of water to a man walking in the desert for days. The parched man will surely take it and wonder why you even bothered to mock him with such a paltry offer. This is terrible news and we need to act quickly. The FCC has created the logical platform to move ahead in allowing the unlicensed use of unused television channels in its 04-186 rulemaking which it has allowed to leave in a limbo state and tasking the FCC with passing their own rulemaking is the logical way to move forward and help the broadband industry. Believing that one 6 MHz channel for broadband use is helpful is just plain laughable and shows a complete lack of understanding of our problems in helping deliver broadband to rural and under-served citizens who are begging for access to broadband and cannot receive it from any source. These unused television channels will give them broadband. A single 6 MHz channel is not a true effort to help and is insulting to the public. Without several channels to allow for frequency reuse the single channel forces providers to either segment the single channel into minuscule sizes delivering substandard speeds or face almost certain interference as multiple attempts to use the same small 6 MHz channel space would interfere with adjacent efforts from other operators doing the same. In short this is not worthy of consideration and should be scrapped. The only logical step is for the House of Representatives to pass legislation which will task the FCC to pass its 04-186 rulemaking which will open unused television channels up for use as unlicensed carriage of broadband to Americans. This is not just important, it is mandatory if we are to truly close the Digital Divide which is now wider than ever due to a lack of quality spectrum able to do the job. The problem is not that rural Americans do not want broadband or that private enterprise has failed them in some way, the problem is that the thousands of Wireless Internet Service Providers who serve them lack the necessary spectrum to bring their
Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum
John, Yours is an articulate, well written summary. Although some WISPs may feel slapped in the face, politics (law-making) is, as we know, not about face-slapping. Politics is about making laws that bring specific benefits to specific (large or small) groups of people. I expect the 6 MHz of proposed spectrum is either 1 or 2, below: 1. A sincere attempt to provide more license-free spectrum and to bring affordable broadband access to large numbers of rural citizens, proposed by lawmakers who are TECHNICALLY UNEDUCATED about how x amount of spectrum is needed to deliver y amount of broadband throughput to serve z number of citizens. 2. An sincere attempt on the part of TECHNOLOGY-SAVVY lawmakers to improve the business power and dominant political-economic position of the monopolistic telecom industry while ordinary citizens are on their own to cope with the consequences. Thank you for your write-up. jack Tom DeReggi wrote: John, Well said. I agree 6 mhz, a slap in the face. I understood, Brad Larson's comment that 50Mhz is a lot to be thankk full for, when Marlon was suggesting that 50 Mhz was not enough, in critiquing Marlon's proposal. We learned with 900Mhz that we can do a lot with 30 Mhz, although tough. But 6 Mhz, useless, and pointless. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 9:54 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum Please read below and see my remarks on this feeble attempt to help Americans. New spectrum legislation crafted By Dan O'Shea Apr 5, 2006 12:02 PM Five members of the U.S. House of Representatives have announced new legislation that allow broadband wireless carriers and other companies to use television spectrum in the band between 608 Mhz and 614 MHz for unlicensed wireless services. The legislation was introduced by Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and his co- sponsors Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), Paul Gillmor (R-Ohio) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.). The Telecommunications Industry Association applauded the move. Agency president Matthew Flanigan, said in a statement, TIA believes that these proposals could provide for more efficient and effective use of the television broadcast spectrum, as well as have significant benefits for the public by increasing competition in the wireless broadband industry and providing incentives for the development of new and innovative broadband devices and services for businesses and consumers. http://telephonyonline.com/wireless/regulatory/House_spectrum_bill_040506/ My thoughts: The House bill to give us a single 6 MHz channel is far too little to help and could even be regarded as a slap in the face if you have been starved for the quality spectrum we need to do the job as we all have for so long. This does not match the legislation being introduced by the Senate at all and could lead to making this a dead issue instead of helping bring broadband to the masses as intended. It does not surprise me that the TIA has applauded this as it serves their purposes of holding our efforts back. They would prefer to either have only licensed spectrum which acts as a means of keeping competitors out of the wireless space or as we see here they would like to see competing offers from the Senate and House so that the true opportunity as outlined in the FCC 04-186 is locked in debate and taken off the table to meet some compromise or worse yet the effort is killed from having too little common ground to pass a vote from both sides of Congress. If any of you are in the states of Washington, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Ohio or Virginia I certainly hope you will call your Reps today and let them know that 6 MHz of spectrum is like giving a spoonful of water to a man walking in the desert for days. The parched man will surely take it and wonder why you even bothered to mock him with such a paltry offer. This is terrible news and we need to act quickly. The FCC has created the logical platform to move ahead in allowing the unlicensed use of unused television channels in its 04-186 rulemaking which it has allowed to leave in a limbo state and tasking the FCC with passing their own rulemaking is the logical way to move forward and help the broadband industry. Believing that one 6 MHz channel for broadband use is helpful is just plain laughable and shows a complete lack of understanding of our problems in helping deliver broadband to rural and under-served citizens who are begging for access to broadband and cannot receive it from any source. These unused television channels will give them broadband. A single 6 MHz channel is not a true effort to help and is insulting to the public. Without several channels to allow for frequency reuse the single channel forces providers to either
[WISPA] phone-to-voip-to-ethernet conversion
I have an interesting application, that maybe someone has tried: Customer is expanding to a remote office, across the street from the main office. They need to connect voice and data between the two. There's clear LOS, so a wireless link will work. The telephone PBX is at the main office, of course. I need to send avoice line across the wireless link from the main office to the remote one. How do I add the voice? Couldn't I simply do this? PBX [telephone cord][Linksys VoIP phone]-[switch (which also has an uplink to the wired network)][wireless radio] On the other side of the link, the telephone cord would go into a desktop phone terminal. Thanks. Mario --- [This e-mail was scanned for viruses by our AntiVirus Protection System] -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum
Thanks Jack. I am reasonably sure that your number 2 assumption is on the mark. I used the slap in the face statement to illustrate the emotional impact these issues have on me and thousands of others who tell 60% of potential customers each day that they cannot get their broadband because Uncle Sam refuses to give us the spectrum we need to bring them broadband. This borders on outright lunacy. If the House lawmakers wanted to do some good they would have at least read what their Senate counterparts were proposing and saw that undoing the FCC hold-up of the 04-186 rulemaking is the key to the entire effort. Any other sideline efforts such as the House Spectrum Bill are simply ways of tripping up the process and further slowing the wheels of real progress. I am appalled that my own Representative, John Shimkus, who serves on the House Telecommunications Subcommittee has never once even called me for some feedback into what is really happening. I have called him asking for support more than once and I even personally went to his Washington D.C. office once and delivered papers outlining these efforts.. I see more and more why there is so much cynicism about politics today. If I were a Congressman I would admit freely and openly if I did not understand the nuances of a given subject. After all none of us know everything. Most Congressman appear to me to be unable to make that leap and ask for real guidance and try to understand what is at stake in their decision making. It is not enough for politicians to hide behind the rhetoric and be led by cash driven lobbying efforts which direct them like lemmings. The lack of objectivity and rational thinking in D.C. boggles the mind at times. With that said I am sure that telling the House they are Slapping us in the face may be a bit harsh. Maybe they need to hear harsh though if they cannot see what is really happening. If I were drafting a bill I think I would certainly learn what is at stake and what is being played out in the Senate before being part of a crippled effort like that of this House Spectrum Bill. Thanks for listening to my rant. Scriv Jack Unger wrote: John, Yours is an articulate, well written summary. Although some WISPs may feel slapped in the face, politics (law-making) is, as we know, not about face-slapping. Politics is about making laws that bring specific benefits to specific (large or small) groups of people. I expect the 6 MHz of proposed spectrum is either 1 or 2, below: 1. A sincere attempt to provide more license-free spectrum and to bring affordable broadband access to large numbers of rural citizens, proposed by lawmakers who are TECHNICALLY UNEDUCATED about how x amount of spectrum is needed to deliver y amount of broadband throughput to serve z number of citizens. 2. An sincere attempt on the part of TECHNOLOGY-SAVVY lawmakers to improve the business power and dominant political-economic position of the monopolistic telecom industry while ordinary citizens are on their own to cope with the consequences. Thank you for your write-up. jack Tom DeReggi wrote: John, Well said. I agree 6 mhz, a slap in the face. I understood, Brad Larson's comment that 50Mhz is a lot to be thankk full for, when Marlon was suggesting that 50 Mhz was not enough, in critiquing Marlon's proposal. We learned with 900Mhz that we can do a lot with 30 Mhz, although tough. But 6 Mhz, useless, and pointless. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 9:54 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum Please read below and see my remarks on this feeble attempt to help Americans. New spectrum legislation crafted By Dan O'Shea Apr 5, 2006 12:02 PM Five members of the U.S. House of Representatives have announced new legislation that allow broadband wireless carriers and other companies to use television spectrum in the band between 608 Mhz and 614 MHz for unlicensed wireless services. The legislation was introduced by Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and his co- sponsors Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), Paul Gillmor (R-Ohio) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.). The Telecommunications Industry Association applauded the move. Agency president Matthew Flanigan, said in a statement, TIA believes that these proposals could provide for more efficient and effective use of the television broadcast spectrum, as well as have significant benefits for the public by increasing competition in the wireless broadband industry and providing incentives for the development of new and innovative broadband devices and services for businesses and consumers. http://telephonyonline.com/wireless/regulatory/House_spectrum_bill_040506/ My thoughts: The House bill to give us a single 6 MHz channel is far too little to
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
Amen, Matt. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 9:58 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband I'll take a wireless link over a T1 any day if for no other reason then the wireless link will be more reliable. You're never going to suffer the loss of a link due to a backhoe or a drunk driver hitting a pole, which are the two most likely reasons for a T1 failure. Personally, I believe that fixed wireless is truly better and I would argue someone has no business working for a fixed wireless company if they don't believe it too. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Tom, The original postition and question was are you comparing your wireless service to telco T1. After your posts, it's obvious that you are... and I would argue that a land-based line will ALWAYS be better than wireless, with all other factors being the same. Now, if you are able to save the customer $xx per month by using wireless, then there is an advantage. If you can provide other services, then there is an advantage. However, comparing a half-duplex system to a full-duplex system and saying they are the same is... not correct. If you had the choice between running a full-duplex wireless system and half-duplex, which would you do? :) If you could purchase a land-based connection to go from point A to point B for $500 per month, or rent roof-top space at point A and point B for $500 per month, which would you choose? ;) Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: 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 connection able to effect another user's connection, and 2) On one particular link, their upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under normal opperation within acceptable use policy, and 3) On one particular link, their upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under a Denial of Service situation. With any type of broadband, if the capacity of a link is saturated, it results in packet loss and performance loss for the individual's connection. Its up to the end user to protect against violation of acceptable use policy like viruses that deliver abnormal PPS, or any queueing needed to allow fair priority of data type on the LAN side of the link. These problems can also all be solved with a feature rich client side router before plugging to our Broadband, regardless of the Duplex of our link. In other words, The same performance problems will result on a full Duplex link, if one direction gets saturated, and that same direction traffic will result in packet loss, and all communication generally requires some communication in each of the direction for traffic to flow in one direction. So where the problem may be worse with Half Duplex, the problem still exists in some capacity with Full Duplex. I'd argue that its possible to generate enough pps on a Full Duplex Link in one direction, that will overload the processing power of the radio CPU, and the other direction still getting horrible performance even with no traffic passing in that other direction even though Full Duplex, because no CPU time is available for it. Unless each direction has its own CPU, which is not likely. This is an issue of whether the radio used can handle the number of PPS sent to it in high DOS situations. I'd also argue under this situation 4000 pps 1500 mbps, that the customer's use of the circuit in any capacity when a DOS of that type was happening, would be not possible, and justify immediate tech action to resolve, regardless of whether one direction of traffic was usable. I;ve never met a company where having one direction traffic only was acceptable or tolerable. You did however hit on an important clarification. A half duplex link can not distinguish on its own wether upload or download traffic at a given moment is priority or more important to the subscriber. When there is a large demand for legitimate broadband, why would the data in one direction be any more priority than the other, when capacity is reached? Either way the customer is compromised in throughout needs one direction or another. Doesn't it really mean that the customer needs more total bandwidth? Is it any more important that mail was sent and not received? Full Duplex is one way for a customer to solve that problem, and reserve bandwdith in one direction. But does that really solve the problem? Maybe if the circuit's intended use is for 100% VOIP a symetrical application. But not many circuits are used for that purpose. And if I really wanted to, I can set my bandwdith management
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
Hi, I have point to point T1 lines from Qwest that have been up 100% for the last 3 years. That's 100.0% uptime. Do you have any wireless links that have that type of reliability? I am probably one of the largest WISP operators on this and any wireless list. I built our entire wireless backbone from the ground up starting in 1997. I spent 3 hours on a tower this morning installing two new AP's. I understand where wireless fits and where it doesn't. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: I'll take a wireless link over a T1 any day if for no other reason then the wireless link will be more reliable. You're never going to suffer the loss of a link due to a backhoe or a drunk driver hitting a pole, which are the two most likely reasons for a T1 failure. Personally, I believe that fixed wireless is truly better and I would argue someone has no business working for a fixed wireless company if they don't believe it too. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Tom, The original postition and question was are you comparing your wireless service to telco T1. After your posts, it's obvious that you are... and I would argue that a land-based line will ALWAYS be better than wireless, with all other factors being the same. Now, if you are able to save the customer $xx per month by using wireless, then there is an advantage. If you can provide other services, then there is an advantage. However, comparing a half-duplex system to a full-duplex system and saying they are the same is... not correct. If you had the choice between running a full-duplex wireless system and half-duplex, which would you do? :) If you could purchase a land-based connection to go from point A to point B for $500 per month, or rent roof-top space at point A and point B for $500 per month, which would you choose? ;) Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: 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 connection able to effect another user's connection, and 2) On one particular link, their upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under normal opperation within acceptable use policy, and 3) On one particular link, their upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under a Denial of Service situation. With any type of broadband, if the capacity of a link is saturated, it results in packet loss and performance loss for the individual's connection. Its up to the end user to protect against violation of acceptable use policy like viruses that deliver abnormal PPS, or any queueing needed to allow fair priority of data type on the LAN side of the link. These problems can also all be solved with a feature rich client side router before plugging to our Broadband, regardless of the Duplex of our link. In other words, The same performance problems will result on a full Duplex link, if one direction gets saturated, and that same direction traffic will result in packet loss, and all communication generally requires some communication in each of the direction for traffic to flow in one direction. So where the problem may be worse with Half Duplex, the problem still exists in some capacity with Full Duplex. I'd argue that its possible to generate enough pps on a Full Duplex Link in one direction, that will overload the processing power of the radio CPU, and the other direction still getting horrible performance even with no traffic passing in that other direction even though Full Duplex, because no CPU time is available for it. Unless each direction has its own CPU, which is not likely. This is an issue of whether the radio used can handle the number of PPS sent to it in high DOS situations. I'd also argue under this situation 4000 pps 1500 mbps, that the customer's use of the circuit in any capacity when a DOS of that type was happening, would be not possible, and justify immediate tech action to resolve, regardless of whether one direction of traffic was usable. I;ve never met a company where having one direction traffic only was acceptable or tolerable. You did however hit on an important clarification. A half duplex link can not distinguish on its own wether upload or download traffic at a given moment is priority or more important to the subscriber. When there is a large demand for legitimate broadband, why would the data in one direction be any more priority than the other, when capacity is reached? Either way the customer is compromised in throughout needs one direction or another. Doesn't it really mean that the customer needs more total bandwidth? Is it any more important that mail was sent and not received? Full Duplex is one way for a customer to solve that problem, and reserve bandwdith in one direction. But does that
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
Travis, I have point to point T1 lines from Qwest that have been up 100% for the last 3 years. That's 100.0% uptime. Do you have any wireless links that have that type of reliability? Yes. I have a 12 mile backhaul using PtMP Trango 5800s, From Rockville, Md to Vienna, VA, that has not went down in 4 years. This year I had lost some high end subs in DC, due to excessive outages over a 6 month period. They bailed, because they doubted wireless, however, the ironic part was the fiber carrier was the faught. The Fiber partner had outages 5 to 2 ratio. 2 Outages Wireless, itemized as: 1 outage was due to antenna moving - repaired 2 hours. 1 outage interference and required channel change - repaired 30 minutes. 5 Outages - Fiber carrier, itemized as: 1. Serious Peering problem (level 3). - repair time 1 week 2. Fiber converter failure -packet loss - Fiber carrier could not respond for 8 hours, I performed the prepair while waiting for their tech. 3. Bad cell in battery backup - 4 hours, a second outage required for repair, 10 minutes. 4. Fiber end got dirty by airborn dust -packet loss - Intermittent problems 2 weeks while carrier denied a problem. I performed repair and put new end on cable. 5. Fiber carrier outage- fiber cut some where. For comparisons, both links wireless and Fiber were PtP links. Many T1s are delivered over Fiber now. Wireless can be just as reliable. Now I'll ask... Can you Qwest T1 deliver 10 mbps? How long did it take to get installed? For any of your T1s that did fail, what was the repair time? I am probably one of the largest WISP operators on this and any wireless list. I built our entire wireless backbone from the ground up starting in 1997. I spent 3 hours on a tower this morning installing two new AP's. I understand where wireless fits and where it doesn't. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: I'll take a wireless link over a T1 any day if for no other reason then the wireless link will be more reliable. You're never going to suffer the loss of a link due to a backhoe or a drunk driver hitting a pole, which are the two most likely reasons for a T1 failure. Personally, I believe that fixed wireless is truly better and I would argue someone has no business working for a fixed wireless company if they don't believe it too. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Tom, The original postition and question was are you comparing your wireless service to telco T1. After your posts, it's obvious that you are... and I would argue that a land-based line will ALWAYS be better than wireless, with all other factors being the same. Now, if you are able to save the customer $xx per month by using wireless, then there is an advantage. If you can provide other services, then there is an advantage. However, comparing a half-duplex system to a full-duplex system and saying they are the same is... not correct. If you had the choice between running a full-duplex wireless system and half-duplex, which would you do? :) If you could purchase a land-based connection to go from point A to point B for $500 per month, or rent roof-top space at point A and point B for $500 per month, which would you choose? ;) Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: 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 connection able to effect another user's connection, and 2) On one particular link, their upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under normal opperation within acceptable use policy, and 3) On one particular link, their upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under a Denial of Service situation. With any type of broadband, if the capacity of a link is saturated, it results in packet loss and performance loss for the individual's connection. Its up to the end user to protect against violation of acceptable use policy like viruses that deliver abnormal PPS, or any queueing needed to allow fair priority of data type on the LAN side of the link. These problems can also all be solved with a feature rich client side router before plugging to our Broadband, regardless of the Duplex of our link. In other words, The same performance problems will result on a full Duplex link, if one direction gets saturated, and that same direction traffic will result in packet loss, and all communication generally requires some communication in each of the direction for traffic to flow in one direction. So where the problem may be worse with Half Duplex, the problem still exists in some capacity with Full Duplex. I'd argue that its possible to generate enough pps on a Full Duplex Link in one direction, that will overload the processing power of the radio CPU, and the
[WISPA] Is this real? More unlicensed bands?
I cannot believe I have never read about this before. Is it an April Fool's joke? According to the sources I have seen this was released a couple of years back. Can anyone confirm or deny the validity of this information? Does anyone have a link that leads to a description of exactly what can and cannot be done with these bands if it is real? I know it is indicating UWB but this does not appear to be the only thing it is limited to i I am reading this right. Many thanks, Scriv From December 24, 2004: * FCC Permits New Unlicensed UWB Devices* * ** *The FCC adopted new rules to permit unlicensed wideband devices in the 6 GHz, 17 GHz and 24 GHz bands. Specifically, the FCC amended its rules for general Part 15 unlicensed operations that use wide bandwidths but are not classified as UWB devices under its rules. It increased the peak power limits and reduced the unwanted emission levels for 3 frequency bands that were already available for unlicensed operation: 5925-7250 MHz, 16.2-17.2 GHz, and 23.12-29 GHz, and indicated that higher peak power limits in these bands would facilitate wideband operations such as short range communications, collision avoidance, inventory control and tracking systems. The Commission also amended its measurement procedures to permit frequency hopped, swept frequency, and gated systems operating within these bands to be measured in their normal operating mode. 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/
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
Tom, Could you please post the sysinfo of the 5800 radio showing an uptime of 48 months... I've never seen one over 10 months (even with over 100 Trango AP's running now). :) Repair time for any down T1 lines has been less than 24 hours... usually 1-2 hours. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Travis, I have point to point T1 lines from Qwest that have been up 100% for the last 3 years. That's 100.0% uptime. Do you have any wireless links that have that type of reliability? Yes. I have a 12 mile backhaul using PtMP Trango 5800s, From Rockville, Md to Vienna, VA, that has not went down in 4 years. This year I had lost some high end subs in DC, due to excessive outages over a 6 month period. They bailed, because they doubted wireless, however, the ironic part was the fiber carrier was the faught. The Fiber partner had outages 5 to 2 ratio. 2 Outages Wireless, itemized as: 1 outage was due to antenna moving - repaired 2 hours. 1 outage interference and required channel change - repaired 30 minutes. 5 Outages - Fiber carrier, itemized as: 1. Serious Peering problem (level 3). - repair time 1 week 2. Fiber converter failure -packet loss - Fiber carrier could not respond for 8 hours, I performed the prepair while waiting for their tech. 3. Bad cell in battery backup - 4 hours, a second outage required for repair, 10 minutes. 4. Fiber end got dirty by airborn dust -packet loss - Intermittent problems 2 weeks while carrier denied a problem. I performed repair and put new end on cable. 5. Fiber carrier outage- fiber cut some where. For comparisons, both links wireless and Fiber were PtP links. Many T1s are delivered over Fiber now. Wireless can be just as reliable. Now I'll ask... Can you Qwest T1 deliver 10 mbps? How long did it take to get installed? For any of your T1s that did fail, what was the repair time? I am probably one of the largest WISP operators on this and any wireless list. I built our entire wireless backbone from the ground up starting in 1997. I spent 3 hours on a tower this morning installing two new AP's. I understand where wireless fits and where it doesn't. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: I'll take a wireless link over a T1 any day if for no other reason then the wireless link will be more reliable. You're never going to suffer the loss of a link due to a backhoe or a drunk driver hitting a pole, which are the two most likely reasons for a T1 failure. Personally, I believe that fixed wireless is truly better and I would argue someone has no business working for a fixed wireless company if they don't believe it too. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Tom, The original postition and question was are you comparing your wireless service to telco T1. After your posts, it's obvious that you are... and I would argue that a land-based line will ALWAYS be better than wireless, with all other factors being the same. Now, if you are able to save the customer $xx per month by using wireless, then there is an advantage. If you can provide other services, then there is an advantage. However, comparing a half-duplex system to a full-duplex system and saying they are the same is... not correct. If you had the choice between running a full-duplex wireless system and half-duplex, which would you do? :) If you could purchase a land-based connection to go from point A to point B for $500 per month, or rent roof-top space at point A and point B for $500 per month, which would you choose? ;) Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: 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 connection able to effect another user's connection, and 2) On one particular link, their upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under normal opperation within acceptable use policy, and 3) On one particular link, their upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under a Denial of Service situation. With any type of broadband, if the capacity of a link is saturated, it results in packet loss and performance loss for the individual's connection. Its up to the end user to protect against violation of acceptable use policy like viruses that deliver abnormal PPS, or any queueing needed to allow fair priority of data type on the LAN side of the link. These problems can also all be solved with a feature rich client side router before plugging to our Broadband, regardless of the Duplex of our link. In other words, The same performance problems will result on a full Duplex link, if one direction gets saturated, and that same direction traffic will result in packet loss, and all communication generally requires some communication in each of the direction
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
Well engineered links with proper installation, lightning protection, battery backup and good gear will be just as reliable (if not more) as any land line system in my opinion. The rub is that many wireless links are poorly engineered, bad gear and not installed well. Garbage in...garbage out. I am just as guilty as anyone else. I am fixing that though. I have wireless links that are getting to be as reliable as wired ones. I will be better than wired reliably here in a year. The cost factor puts wireless well ahead of any risk/reward or value comparisons to other broadband platforms. Wireless will be the clear winner in the end if we all learn to do it right and buy good gear. Scriv Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I have point to point T1 lines from Qwest that have been up 100% for the last 3 years. That's 100.0% uptime. Do you have any wireless links that have that type of reliability? I am probably one of the largest WISP operators on this and any wireless list. I built our entire wireless backbone from the ground up starting in 1997. I spent 3 hours on a tower this morning installing two new AP's. I understand where wireless fits and where it doesn't. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: I'll take a wireless link over a T1 any day if for no other reason then the wireless link will be more reliable. You're never going to suffer the loss of a link due to a backhoe or a drunk driver hitting a pole, which are the two most likely reasons for a T1 failure. Personally, I believe that fixed wireless is truly better and I would argue someone has no business working for a fixed wireless company if they don't believe it too. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Tom, The original postition and question was are you comparing your wireless service to telco T1. After your posts, it's obvious that you are... and I would argue that a land-based line will ALWAYS be better than wireless, with all other factors being the same. Now, if you are able to save the customer $xx per month by using wireless, then there is an advantage. If you can provide other services, then there is an advantage. However, comparing a half-duplex system to a full-duplex system and saying they are the same is... not correct. If you had the choice between running a full-duplex wireless system and half-duplex, which would you do? :) If you could purchase a land-based connection to go from point A to point B for $500 per month, or rent roof-top space at point A and point B for $500 per month, which would you choose? ;) Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: 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 connection able to effect another user's connection, and 2) On one particular link, their upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under normal opperation within acceptable use policy, and 3) On one particular link, their upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under a Denial of Service situation. With any type of broadband, if the capacity of a link is saturated, it results in packet loss and performance loss for the individual's connection. Its up to the end user to protect against violation of acceptable use policy like viruses that deliver abnormal PPS, or any queueing needed to allow fair priority of data type on the LAN side of the link. These problems can also all be solved with a feature rich client side router before plugging to our Broadband, regardless of the Duplex of our link. In other words, The same performance problems will result on a full Duplex link, if one direction gets saturated, and that same direction traffic will result in packet loss, and all communication generally requires some communication in each of the direction for traffic to flow in one direction. So where the problem may be worse with Half Duplex, the problem still exists in some capacity with Full Duplex. I'd argue that its possible to generate enough pps on a Full Duplex Link in one direction, that will overload the processing power of the radio CPU, and the other direction still getting horrible performance even with no traffic passing in that other direction even though Full Duplex, because no CPU time is available for it. Unless each direction has its own CPU, which is not likely. This is an issue of whether the radio used can handle the number of PPS sent to it in high DOS situations. I'd also argue under this situation 4000 pps 1500 mbps, that the customer's use of the circuit in any capacity when a DOS of that type was happening, would be not possible, and justify immediate tech action to resolve, regardless of whether one direction of traffic was usable. I;ve never met a company where having one direction traffic only
[WISPA] Strange problem after AP upgrade (at my wits end)
All,we have a 50' tower that had a soekris4511 board running a modified version of pebble linux.The system worked great for nearly 2 years.We upgraded the system to a soekris 4521 and bridged both pcmcia interfaces to have a 2 sector site.The 2 sector system works great except for one problem:it randomly dies every 1-4 days and never comes back!(until a tech goes on site and recycles power)The lockup symptoms are as folows:1) blinking link light at switch where eth0 is plugged in.2) No response from any interface - wired or wireless.3) System log is set to issue a mark line every 10 minutes, but nothing is written during this lockup time. The system has a working tested watchdog timer.What has been tried (not in this order):1) cron job that pings wireless backhaul and does a reboot if no ping answer for 10 min. (didn't ever run) 2) Thinking it might be a power problem we replaced power supplies.3) Not trusting our POE ethernet cable, we used a second Cat5 cable for DC power only.4 wires were used for each line of the DC power, which was plugged directly into the motherboard.4) Added a ground rod cable to improve tower grounding. (remember though, this single sector system worked fine without this added grounding)5) swapped out the 4521 motherboard.6) created a bench test system.This was an exact duplicate of the tower system without external antennas, run on the bench.wireless LT - 2 sector system(backhaul link) - wireless router - wired laptopIn this test system our test AP runs without any wired connections, as it is in the field.We ran flat out repeated copy scripts for 3-4 days, and transferred approx 40G at about 3Mb/s (way more that actual field conditions!).Never saw test system lockup, its up time was always correct.This actual 4521 mother board is now on the tower, and we still see the problem.Any suggestions??Thank you kindly,Marshall -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Strange problem after AP upgrade (at my wits end)
Try different radios and/or system OS. You could run Mikrotik or Star OS on the board for little money. If it is not a motherboard issue then I think there is something that the OS or radios do not like specific to that location. Scriv rabbtux rabbtux wrote: All, we have a 50' tower that had a soekris4511 board running a modified version of pebble linux. The system worked great for nearly 2 years. We upgraded the system to a soekris 4521 and bridged both pcmcia interfaces to have a 2 sector site. The 2 sector system works great except for one problem: it randomly dies every 1-4 days and never comes back! (until a tech goes on site and recycles power) The lockup symptoms are as folows: 1) blinking link light at switch where eth0 is plugged in. 2) No response from any interface - wired or wireless. 3) System log is set to issue a mark line every 10 minutes, but nothing is written during this lockup time. The system has a working tested watchdog timer. What has been tried (not in this order): 1) cron job that pings wireless backhaul and does a reboot if no ping answer for 10 min. (didn't ever run) 2) Thinking it might be a power problem we replaced power supplies. 3) Not trusting our POE ethernet cable, we used a second Cat5 cable for DC power only. 4 wires were used for each line of the DC power, which was plugged directly into the motherboard. 4) Added a ground rod cable to improve tower grounding. (remember though, this single sector system worked fine without this added grounding) 5) swapped out the 4521 motherboard. 6) created a bench test system. This was an exact duplicate of the tower system without external antennas, run on the bench. wireless LT - 2 sector system(backhaul link) - wireless router - wired laptop In this test system our test AP runs without any wired connections, as it is in the field. We ran flat out repeated copy scripts for 3-4 days, and transferred approx 40G at about 3Mb/s (way more that actual field conditions!). Never saw test system lockup, its up time was always correct. This actual 4521 mother board is now on the tower, and we still see the problem. Any suggestions?? Thank you kindly, Marshall -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
Travis, Can you provide the Sysinfo screen for your Quest T1 router, showing 3 years please. Could you please post the sysinfo of the 5800 radio showing an uptime of 48 months My mistake. It has never failed in 4 years, however, it has been taken down by me for scheduled maintenance. I forgot, I took the link down about a year and a half ago for 30 seconds, so I could plug it into a new auto remote Reboot device. However, 567 days aint bad. # sysinfo [Hardware Version] 8002 [FPGA Version] 02103000 [Checksum] 7ADD5AB6 [Firmware Version] AP 1p11H8002D03100301 [Checksum] EF3391FF [Device ID] 00 01 DE 00 31 C7 [Base ID] 1 [AP ID] 2 [System Up Time] 567 day(s) 18:06:04 [Radio Temperature] 31 C [Opmode] ap [Default Opmode] ap [Opmode Start] 30 sec [IP] 10.0.1.2 [Subnet Mask] 255.255.255.0 [Gateway] 10.0.1.1 [Httpd Port] 80 [Httpd Status] listen [Telnetd Port] 23 [Telnetd Status] connected (10.0.1.1,53208) [Tftpd] disabled [MIR Threshold] off [MIR Threshold Kbps] 4096 [Active Channel] 6 v 5836 MHz [RF Rx Threshold] -80 dBm [RF Tx Power] 22 dBm Channel Table: (MHz) [Ch#01] 5736 [Ch#02] 5756 [Ch#03] 5776 [Ch#04] 5796 [Ch#05] 5816 [Ch#06] 5836 [Ch#07] 5260 [Ch#08] 5280 [Ch#09] 5300 [Ch#10] 5320 [Ch#11] 5340 [Ch#12] 5736 [Ch#13] 5736 [Ch#14] 5736 [Ch#15] 5736 [Ch#16] 5736 [Ch#17] 5736 [Ch#18] 5736 [Ch#19] 5736 [Ch#20] 5736 [Ch#21] 5736 [Ch#22] 5736 [Ch#23] 5736 [Ch#24] 5736 [Ch#25] 5736 [Ch#26] 5736 [Ch#27] 5736 [Ch#28] 5736 [Ch#29] 5736 [Ch#30] 5736 [Broadcast Packet] pass [Remarks] ap-2, ap-rockville Success. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 6:32 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Tom, Could you please post the sysinfo of the 5800 radio showing an uptime of 48 months... I've never seen one over 10 months (even with over 100 Trango AP's running now). :) Repair time for any down T1 lines has been less than 24 hours... usually 1-2 hours. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Travis, I have point to point T1 lines from Qwest that have been up 100% for the last 3 years. That's 100.0% uptime. Do you have any wireless links that have that type of reliability? Yes. I have a 12 mile backhaul using PtMP Trango 5800s, From Rockville, Md to Vienna, VA, that has not went down in 4 years. This year I had lost some high end subs in DC, due to excessive outages over a 6 month period. They bailed, because they doubted wireless, however, the ironic part was the fiber carrier was the faught. The Fiber partner had outages 5 to 2 ratio. 2 Outages Wireless, itemized as: 1 outage was due to antenna moving - repaired 2 hours. 1 outage interference and required channel change - repaired 30 minutes. 5 Outages - Fiber carrier, itemized as: 1. Serious Peering problem (level 3). - repair time 1 week 2. Fiber converter failure -packet loss - Fiber carrier could not respond for 8 hours, I performed the prepair while waiting for their tech. 3. Bad cell in battery backup - 4 hours, a second outage required for repair, 10 minutes. 4. Fiber end got dirty by airborn dust -packet loss - Intermittent problems 2 weeks while carrier denied a problem. I performed repair and put new end on cable. 5. Fiber carrier outage- fiber cut some where. For comparisons, both links wireless and Fiber were PtP links. Many T1s are delivered over Fiber now. Wireless can be just as reliable. Now I'll ask... Can you Qwest T1 deliver 10 mbps? How long did it take to get installed? For any of your T1s that did fail, what was the repair time? I am probably one of the largest WISP operators on this and any wireless list. I built our entire wireless backbone from the ground up starting in 1997. I spent 3 hours on a tower this morning installing two new AP's. I understand where wireless fits and where it doesn't. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: I'll take a wireless link over a T1 any day if for no other reason then the wireless link will be more reliable. You're never going to suffer the loss of a link due to a backhoe or a drunk driver hitting a pole, which are the two most likely reasons for a T1 failure. Personally, I believe that fixed wireless is truly better and I would argue someone has no business working for a fixed wireless company if they don't believe it too. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Tom, The original postition and question was are you comparing your wireless service to telco T1. After your posts, it's obvious that you are... and I would argue that a land-based line will ALWAYS be better than wireless, with all other factors being the same. Now, if you are able to save the customer $xx per month by using wireless, then there is an advantage. If you can provide other services, then there is an advantage. However, comparing a
RE: [WISPA] Is this real? More unlicensed bands?
John, Just off the top of my head this may be for RFID type devices looking at the description of the services that might use it. I think I recall some activity a while ago trying to increase the power levels for RFID systems. The collision avoidance systems they speak of may be back-up types for large vehicles and or smart highway/car systems. Just a thought. Thank You, Brian Webster -Original Message- From: John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 6:27 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Is this real? More unlicensed bands? I cannot believe I have never read about this before. Is it an April Fool's joke? According to the sources I have seen this was released a couple of years back. Can anyone confirm or deny the validity of this information? Does anyone have a link that leads to a description of exactly what can and cannot be done with these bands if it is real? I know it is indicating UWB but this does not appear to be the only thing it is limited to i I am reading this right. Many thanks, Scriv From December 24, 2004: * FCC Permits New Unlicensed UWB Devices* * ** *The FCC adopted new rules to permit unlicensed wideband devices in the 6 GHz, 17 GHz and 24 GHz bands. Specifically, the FCC amended its rules for general Part 15 unlicensed operations that use wide bandwidths but are not classified as UWB devices under its rules. It increased the peak power limits and reduced the unwanted emission levels for 3 frequency bands that were already available for unlicensed operation: 5925-7250 MHz, 16.2-17.2 GHz, and 23.12-29 GHz, and indicated that higher peak power limits in these bands would facilitate wideband operations such as short range communications, collision avoidance, inventory control and tracking systems. The Commission also amended its measurement procedures to permit frequency hopped, swept frequency, and gated systems operating within these bands to be measured in their normal operating mode. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
Wow... 567 days is the longest I've seen on any wireless radio... that's very cool. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Travis, Can you provide the Sysinfo screen for your Quest T1 router, showing 3 years please. Could you please post the sysinfo of the 5800 radio showing an uptime of 48 months My mistake. It has never failed in 4 years, however, it has been taken down by me for scheduled maintenance. I forgot, I took the link down about a year and a half ago for 30 seconds, so I could plug it into a new auto remote Reboot device. However, 567 days aint bad. # sysinfo [Hardware Version] 8002 [FPGA Version] 02103000 [Checksum] 7ADD5AB6 [Firmware Version] AP 1p11H8002D03100301 [Checksum] EF3391FF [Device ID] 00 01 DE 00 31 C7 [Base ID] 1 [AP ID] 2 [System Up Time] 567 day(s) 18:06:04 [Radio Temperature] 31 C [Opmode] ap [Default Opmode] ap [Opmode Start] 30 sec [IP] 10.0.1.2 [Subnet Mask] 255.255.255.0 [Gateway] 10.0.1.1 [Httpd Port] 80 [Httpd Status] listen [Telnetd Port] 23 [Telnetd Status] connected (10.0.1.1,53208) [Tftpd] disabled [MIR Threshold] off [MIR Threshold Kbps] 4096 [Active Channel] 6 v 5836 MHz [RF Rx Threshold] -80 dBm [RF Tx Power] 22 dBm Channel Table: (MHz) [Ch#01] 5736 [Ch#02] 5756 [Ch#03] 5776 [Ch#04] 5796 [Ch#05] 5816 [Ch#06] 5836 [Ch#07] 5260 [Ch#08] 5280 [Ch#09] 5300 [Ch#10] 5320 [Ch#11] 5340 [Ch#12] 5736 [Ch#13] 5736 [Ch#14] 5736 [Ch#15] 5736 [Ch#16] 5736 [Ch#17] 5736 [Ch#18] 5736 [Ch#19] 5736 [Ch#20] 5736 [Ch#21] 5736 [Ch#22] 5736 [Ch#23] 5736 [Ch#24] 5736 [Ch#25] 5736 [Ch#26] 5736 [Ch#27] 5736 [Ch#28] 5736 [Ch#29] 5736 [Ch#30] 5736 [Broadcast Packet] pass [Remarks] ap-2, ap-rockville Success. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 6:32 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Tom, Could you please post the sysinfo of the 5800 radio showing an uptime of 48 months... I've never seen one over 10 months (even with over 100 Trango AP's running now). :) Repair time for any down T1 lines has been less than 24 hours... usually 1-2 hours. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Travis, I have point to point T1 lines from Qwest that have been up 100% for the last 3 years. That's 100.0% uptime. Do you have any wireless links that have that type of reliability? Yes. I have a 12 mile backhaul using PtMP Trango 5800s, From Rockville, Md to Vienna, VA, that has not went down in 4 years. This year I had lost some high end subs in DC, due to excessive outages over a 6 month period. They bailed, because they doubted wireless, however, the ironic part was the fiber carrier was the faught. The Fiber partner had outages 5 to 2 ratio. 2 Outages Wireless, itemized as: 1 outage was due to antenna moving - repaired 2 hours. 1 outage interference and required channel change - repaired 30 minutes. 5 Outages - Fiber carrier, itemized as: 1. Serious Peering problem (level 3). - repair time 1 week 2. Fiber converter failure -packet loss - Fiber carrier could not respond for 8 hours, I performed the prepair while waiting for their tech. 3. Bad cell in battery backup - 4 hours, a second outage required for repair, 10 minutes. 4. Fiber end got dirty by airborn dust -packet loss - Intermittent problems 2 weeks while carrier denied a problem. I performed repair and put new end on cable. 5. Fiber carrier outage- fiber cut some where. For comparisons, both links wireless and Fiber were PtP links. Many T1s are delivered over Fiber now. Wireless can be just as reliable. Now I'll ask... Can you Qwest T1 deliver 10 mbps? How long did it take to get installed? For any of your T1s that did fail, what was the repair time? I am probably one of the largest WISP operators on this and any wireless list. I built our entire wireless backbone from the ground up starting in 1997. I spent 3 hours on a tower this morning installing two new AP's. I understand where wireless fits and where it doesn't. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: I'll take a wireless link over a T1 any day if for no other reason then the wireless link will be more reliable. You're never going to suffer the loss of a link due to a backhoe or a drunk driver hitting a pole, which are the two most likely reasons for a T1 failure. Personally, I believe that fixed wireless is truly better and I would argue someone has no business working for a fixed wireless company if they don't believe it too. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Tom, The original postition and question was are you comparing your wireless service to telco T1. After your posts, it's obvious that you are... and I would argue that a land-based line will ALWAYS be better than wireless, with all other factors being the same. Now, if you are able to save the customer $xx per month by using
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
new auto remote Reboot device You should go unplug it again to take the new auto remote reboot device to a radio that needs it. :) LOL Tom DeReggi wrote: Travis, Can you provide the Sysinfo screen for your Quest T1 router, showing 3 years please. Could you please post the sysinfo of the 5800 radio showing an uptime of 48 months My mistake. It has never failed in 4 years, however, it has been taken down by me for scheduled maintenance. I forgot, I took the link down about a year and a half ago for 30 seconds, so I could plug it into a new auto remote Reboot device. However, 567 days aint bad. # sysinfo [Hardware Version] 8002 [FPGA Version] 02103000 [Checksum] 7ADD5AB6 [Firmware Version] AP 1p11H8002D03100301 [Checksum] EF3391FF [Device ID] 00 01 DE 00 31 C7 [Base ID] 1 [AP ID] 2 [System Up Time] 567 day(s) 18:06:04 [Radio Temperature] 31 C [Opmode] ap [Default Opmode] ap [Opmode Start] 30 sec [IP] 10.0.1.2 [Subnet Mask] 255.255.255.0 [Gateway] 10.0.1.1 [Httpd Port] 80 [Httpd Status] listen [Telnetd Port] 23 [Telnetd Status] connected (10.0.1.1,53208) [Tftpd] disabled [MIR Threshold] off [MIR Threshold Kbps] 4096 [Active Channel] 6 v 5836 MHz [RF Rx Threshold] -80 dBm [RF Tx Power] 22 dBm Channel Table: (MHz) [Ch#01] 5736 [Ch#02] 5756 [Ch#03] 5776 [Ch#04] 5796 [Ch#05] 5816 [Ch#06] 5836 [Ch#07] 5260 [Ch#08] 5280 [Ch#09] 5300 [Ch#10] 5320 [Ch#11] 5340 [Ch#12] 5736 [Ch#13] 5736 [Ch#14] 5736 [Ch#15] 5736 [Ch#16] 5736 [Ch#17] 5736 [Ch#18] 5736 [Ch#19] 5736 [Ch#20] 5736 [Ch#21] 5736 [Ch#22] 5736 [Ch#23] 5736 [Ch#24] 5736 [Ch#25] 5736 [Ch#26] 5736 [Ch#27] 5736 [Ch#28] 5736 [Ch#29] 5736 [Ch#30] 5736 [Broadcast Packet] pass [Remarks] ap-2, ap-rockville Success. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 6:32 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Tom, Could you please post the sysinfo of the 5800 radio showing an uptime of 48 months... I've never seen one over 10 months (even with over 100 Trango AP's running now). :) Repair time for any down T1 lines has been less than 24 hours... usually 1-2 hours. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Travis, I have point to point T1 lines from Qwest that have been up 100% for the last 3 years. That's 100.0% uptime. Do you have any wireless links that have that type of reliability? Yes. I have a 12 mile backhaul using PtMP Trango 5800s, From Rockville, Md to Vienna, VA, that has not went down in 4 years. This year I had lost some high end subs in DC, due to excessive outages over a 6 month period. They bailed, because they doubted wireless, however, the ironic part was the fiber carrier was the faught. The Fiber partner had outages 5 to 2 ratio. 2 Outages Wireless, itemized as: 1 outage was due to antenna moving - repaired 2 hours. 1 outage interference and required channel change - repaired 30 minutes. 5 Outages - Fiber carrier, itemized as: 1. Serious Peering problem (level 3). - repair time 1 week 2. Fiber converter failure -packet loss - Fiber carrier could not respond for 8 hours, I performed the prepair while waiting for their tech. 3. Bad cell in battery backup - 4 hours, a second outage required for repair, 10 minutes. 4. Fiber end got dirty by airborn dust -packet loss - Intermittent problems 2 weeks while carrier denied a problem. I performed repair and put new end on cable. 5. Fiber carrier outage- fiber cut some where. For comparisons, both links wireless and Fiber were PtP links. Many T1s are delivered over Fiber now. Wireless can be just as reliable. Now I'll ask... Can you Qwest T1 deliver 10 mbps? How long did it take to get installed? For any of your T1s that did fail, what was the repair time? I am probably one of the largest WISP operators on this and any wireless list. I built our entire wireless backbone from the ground up starting in 1997. I spent 3 hours on a tower this morning installing two new AP's. I understand where wireless fits and where it doesn't. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: I'll take a wireless link over a T1 any day if for no other reason then the wireless link will be more reliable. You're never going to suffer the loss of a link due to a backhoe or a drunk driver hitting a pole, which are the two most likely reasons for a T1 failure. Personally, I believe that fixed wireless is truly better and I would argue someone has no business working for a fixed wireless company if they don't believe it too. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Tom, The original postition and question was are you comparing your wireless service to telco T1. After your posts, it's obvious that you are... and I would argue that a land-based line will ALWAYS be better than wireless, with all other factors being the same. Now, if you are able to save
Re: [WISPA] phone-to-voip-to-ethernet conversion
PBXFXOmoduleEthernetWirelessBridgeWirelessBridgeEthernetFXS module Here is one example, Google will probably get you cheaper ones John -Original Message- From: Mario Pommier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2006 10:57 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] phone-to-voip-to-ethernet conversion I have an interesting application, that maybe someone has tried: Customer is expanding to a remote office, across the street from the main office. They need to connect voice and data between the two. There's clear LOS, so a wireless link will work. The telephone PBX is at the main office, of course. I need to send avoice line across the wireless link from the main office to the remote one. How do I add the voice? Couldn't I simply do this? PBX [telephone cord][Linksys VoIP phone]-[switch (which also has an uplink to the wired network)][wireless radio] On the other side of the link, the telephone cord would go into a desktop phone terminal. Thanks. Mario --- [This e-mail was scanned for viruses by our AntiVirus Protection System] -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Re: CPE Cost Ideas Needed
Cliff: Thank you for the information. The areas of DSL are very spotty and cable is very inexpensive and unreliable. Many people are upset at both situations. DSL is offered for about $30 per month with purchase of a DSL "modem" at around $50 or so and a 1 year contract is required. Cable service rents you the modem for $10 per month and charges $40 per month for service on top of that ($50 per month total for those of you out there in other posts that think half-duplex is as good a full-duplex). I'm shooting at offering 1.5 Mbps service at around $24.95 and offering VOIP for another $24.95 if they so choose. So the competition hasn't a chance against me if I can get around that $350 CPE cost. -- Tom: I understand what you mean by offering a "free month" per year of service and how wireless year-long+ terms may not appeal compared to similar terms with a wired service. What does your company do to alleviate this problem? Thanks. --- Peter: Jeez, do you want me to provide you with my business plan!? ha-ha! I will continue to own the CPE and I'm shooting for a 1-3 term most likely. I could offer a priority guaranteed 24 hour turn around for example but at what price can I afford such a thing. My service is basically self-install. I'm using WaveRider 900 MHz and anybody within about 2 miles (for sure in my area) can do it on their own very easily. So "priority installation" is kind of a mute point. Any other ideas? Thanks! --- Mac: Thank you for your response. I'm not using Trango equipment and I know their prices are lower but that can't be really helped since I've chosen a different provider. Have you had much success with your $400 install costs on the 900 MHz? Thanks. --- Pete: Thank you for the detailed response. I appreciate you taking the time to comment. I don't want to be rude but I took a look at your website and it needs some work. :( In any case, I think you have a point. Could you elaborate more on what you meant by going with a 802.11b AP/CPE. Do you mean you are shooting a signal out to an area using WaveRider and then distributing it via another 802.11b AP from there? I think your right about contracts and install fees and it sounds like your saying that I'm just going to have to eat the cost and extend my ROI per user. Thanks again. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
