Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
Motorola designed Canopy specifically for the WISP market, not the carrier market. Alvarion designed VL specifically for the carrier market, not the WISP market. Thanks, Steve On Apr 11, 2006, at 18:55, Dylan Oliver wrote: How is any product qualified as 'Carrier-Grade'? What is it about Alvarion VL that makes the cut vs. Canopy? Lord knows Motorola produces far more 'Carrier-Grade' equipment than Alvarion ever will - so where did they go wrong with Canopy? Also, I've heard lately several complaints that Waverider has trouble sustaining even 1 Mbps throughput ... what is your experience, John? Best, -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC-- --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
Motorola designed Canopy specifically for the WISP market, not the carrier market. Alvarion designed VL specifically for the carrier market, not the WISP market. Ah, the "mis-perceptions" of the "rugged" metal enclosure =) Steve, can you please explain why carriers would prefer a CSMA/CA over a scheduled (WiMAX-like) MAC? Thanks -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Stroh Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 11:05 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP Thanks, Steve On Apr 11, 2006, at 18:55, Dylan Oliver wrote: > How is any product qualified as 'Carrier-Grade'? What is it about > Alvarion VL that makes the cut vs. Canopy? Lord knows Motorola > produces far more 'Carrier-Grade' equipment than Alvarion ever will - > so where did they go wrong with Canopy? > > Also, I've heard lately several complaints that Waverider has trouble > sustaining even 1 Mbps throughput ... what is your experience, John? > > Best, > -- > Dylan Oliver > Primaverity, LLC-- --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
Hello, Maybe my math is off this morning, for lack of coffee but 2286 Kbit does not equal 22000 Kbit (2.286 Mbit does not equal 22 Mega bit.) which is what I thought I saw at first glance. So if that was KBYTE (which I think it is) instead of Kbit (Kb vs KB) 2286 KBYTE x 8 = 18288 (18.288 Mega Bit) Which is certainly impressive considering the fact that its 10 radios away, and 8 hops as the traceroute shows! But it is Still a bit above half the 30 or 35 Mbit you were previously quoting. -Michael Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: It is TCP. We do not use UDP since it gives a reading that will never be seen by a customer doing an FTP download. We are looking at building in iperf so we should be able to do tcp or udp tests in future. I have a network from Valemount, BC to McBride, BC that has about 100 km of repeater distances. The shot is split in half with mountain shots at each (43 km each) and about 5 km from each mountain top to the POP in each town. We can pull over 20 mbps from POP to POP. It is 8 hops and goes through 10 radios. I have pasted a speed test from the POP in Valemount to the POP in McBride. Both are Linux systems with 1 GHz or better processors that we use for firewall and bandwidth control. Also I have the traceroute to show the hops. lon-home:~/staros # starutil-1.14 10.10.29.1 password -rx rx rate: 2286 KB/sec (Press Ctrl-C to exit) lon-home:~/staros # lon-home:~/staros # traceroute 10.10.29.1 traceroute to 10.10.29.1 (10.10.29.1), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 192.168.250.10 0.430 ms 0.401 ms 0.496 ms 2 10.10.48.254 1.655 ms 1.447 ms 1.185 ms 3 10.10.227.254 2.686 ms 1.965 ms 5.428 ms 4 10.10.12.4 5.469 ms 3.250 ms 4.501 ms 5 10.10.47.253 4.946 ms 4.415 ms 3.581 ms 6 10.10.51.254 6.077 ms 6.472 ms 8.063 ms 7 10.14.99.254 12.615 ms * 5.777 ms 8 10.10.29.1 6.569 ms 7.295 ms 7.686 ms lon-home:~/staros # Lonnie On 4/11/06, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lonnie, Is that TCP or UDP? Travis Microserv Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: Using the 533 MHz IXP-420 we can get an Atheros to just over 35 mbps of non compressible data and almost 90 mbps of compressible data. Lonnie On 4/11/06, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dan, We had this discussion a few weeks ago, although it may have been on another wireless list. What processor and setup are you using to get 30Mbps? The fastest I have seen with routerboard 532's in a p2p config is 20Mbps of TCP traffic passing thru the RB's. Do you have outdoor enclosures? Travis Microserv [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe that the atheros chipset is capped at 35Mbps, although users of MT have claimed higher using very fast cpu's. I have several atheros/MT/nstream links (PTP and PTMP) that push 30Mbps…. Pretty impressive throughput, plus adjustable channels, plus QoS for VoIP and all the other features available make a nice system Dan Metcalf Wireless Broadband Systems www.wbisp.com 781-566-2053 ext 6201 1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783 [EMAIL PROTECTED] support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:28 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP Hi, Does anyone know actual TCP throughput with StarOS on their 533mhz boards in just a point to point config, using 20mhz of spectrum? Travis Microserv Paul Hendry wrote: All the details are on the Valemount web site http://www.staros.com/starvx/ Cheers, P. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Richard Goodin Sent: 11 April 2006 09:15 To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: RE: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP So... Who makes them?, how much? Hi Richard, This cloaking mechanism is the 5MHz and 10MHz channel sizes that George was referring to on the Star WAR boards. Works really well and even seems to improve signal quality. Cheers, P. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Richard Goodin Sent: 11 April 2006 08:09 To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP Guys; These all sound great. I was reading just a couple months back about a WISP operator that had a severe problem. Just a few yards away, maybe 300 feet, another guy put up his tower. I think they were both on 2.4 GHZ, and someone suggested a different AP that would not even be detected by conventional systems. Something about nonstandard bandwidth, channel spacing or coding. I really feel that stealth is best here. These other guys have been in business for a while and could cause trouble that I do not need. Lee Trango does make a good product. I still have 2 Sunstream AP's in use. They are like Timex watches. I'm using Star War boards. A little bit more than
Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
John: Here's my working definition of "carrier grade": Designed for use by carriers Suitable for use by carriers Sufficiently reliable for use by carriers There is MUCH that goes into a product designed for use by carriers. It's expensive and a tough market, so a lot of vendors don't try. Here are just a few features that are "carrier grade requirements" from my perspective: * Designed for use in all conceivable weather elements * Designed for long operational use with minimal attention (in the WISP market, one measure is that it doesn't reboot itself, or require regular reboots) * Designed for easy and fast repair * The vendor stocks ample replacement units deployed geographically for fast supply. * Support expertise by the vendor is readily available (excellent, easy-to-access tech support). Note that such support is almost never free, and carriers don't expect it to be. When they need help, they need it NOW and need to get their systems back online fast. (Carriers often have mandated time-to-repair maximums by regulatory agencies.) * Subtle features like strain relief on all connectors, meeting the telecom industry requirements for rack mounting, built-in protection for power line surges and lightning. * Superb monitoring and remote control capabilities * Offer continuous VERY-in-depth training programs at the factory so that carriers can get their personnel FULLY up to speed on a product. Again, this almost never free, and carriers don't expect it to be. * Offer continuous product improvement, bug fixes, recalls when appropriate, and does so proactively when an issue is identified, and does so in a way to minimize downtime such as offering proactive replacement units. Etc. Regarding "Alvarion versus WISPs"... it's pretty simple. By offering "more like carrier-grade" products, Alvarion saw FAR more market demand by carriers, public safety, enterprise than they saw in the WISP market. They are willing to sell to WISPs, but few WISPs are willing to take the time to truly understand Alvarion's value proposition which involves FAR more than mere price of the product. You've finally come around to this view John, and you'll discover that you have a lot of company in that view - which isn't (widely) represented on this list or necessarily within WISPA. That's because operators who have spent the money for quality gear like Alvarion's generally don't have NEARLY as many issues with such gear that require "group support"... and such operators don't wish to associate their businesses with the "we'll just hack up a Linksys AP and have cheap gear" attitude that a lot of people in the telecom industry equate with WISPs. Is Alvarion arrogant? Yes, at times, and certain individuals. But I think that's mostly a lot of pride and recognition that they were one of the pioneering companies in making it possible to offer carrier-grade services in license-exempt spectrum - something that the telecom industry KNEW could NOT be done. It's also the case that Alvarion offers the broadest product line in Broadband Wireless Internet Access - licensed and license-exempt, fixed and mobile, high-capacity and low-capacity, etc. Alvarion has very capable competitors in various segments, but I can't think of any company that competes head-to-head with Alvarion in all segments, even Airspan. Thanks, Steve On Apr 11, 2006, at 20:51, John Scrivner wrote: I decided to do some reading on the term "carrier-grade" and have found the following to be what is considered a definition in relation to our industry. One random source on the web refers to this as, "A term that implies a system that is designed to have increased availability and timeliness to meet the requirements of a modern communications network element." I saw this quantified on one site as being, a network device which has a sustained uptime of over 99.999%. This was as close to a quantifiable definition as I have found though it gives no length of time or other parameters to use for calculation of this percentage. According to Hughes Software Systems in regard to "Carrier-grade" they state that equipment can only be considered "Carrier-grade" after several years of real field use shows that it is highly available and reliable. In the end it is a very subjective term and one I will not use in the future unless I can quantify the classification. Basically there is no firm definition but I have heard of Alvarion referred to as "Carrier-grade" by others and mistakingly assumed it was a clearly defined characteristic. My apologies for this error in wording. With that said I still think Alvarion is a far better platform than Canopy which is strictly my opinion and has no basis in fact. In the past I have been put-off by a perceived arrogance I have seen by some Alvarion representatives who have insisted previously that they had the "only" viable solution for wireless broadband and seemed as though they w
Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
Actually 2,286 KBytes/sec is 22.86 mbps as compared to the way Telcos rate their ADSL throughput, so I use the same x10 method. The quote of 35 mbps and higher is between two radios whereas the copy and paste shows through ten radios. Obviously to get 22 mbps at the end there is a higher rate in the middle since you lose a bit at each radio. Here is the test repeated on one radio hop. That radio link is also the main feed for the network that feeds to McBride and picks up 9 AP sites and over 200 customers. It brings the feeds into 4 resale ADSL lines that we get from Sprint. The normal traffic through that link is about 2 mbps so my test was competing with traffic on a live link. We use source routing to send particular customers to our choice of ADSL line. I do manual shifting for balancing, but since average throughput is 2 mbps and each ADSL line is 4 mbps / 1 mbps we are only scratching the surface. The system does peak to over 10 mbps but very, very rarely. Lonnie lon-home:~/staros # starutil-1.14 10.10.48.254 password -tx tx rate: 4607 KB/sec (Press Ctrl-C to exit) lon-home:~/staros # tracepath 10.10.48.254 1: 192.168.250.200 (192.168.250.200) 0.381ms pmtu 1500 1: 192.168.250.10 (192.168.250.10)1.241ms 2: 10.10.48.254 (10.10.48.254)2.565ms reached Resume: pmtu 1500 hops 2 back 2 lon-home:~/staros # On 4/12/06, Michael Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > Maybe my math is off this morning, for lack of coffee but > 2286 Kbit does not equal 22000 Kbit (2.286 Mbit does not equal 22 Mega > bit.) > which is what I thought I saw at first glance. > > So if that was KBYTE (which I think it is) instead of Kbit (Kb vs KB) > 2286 KBYTE x 8 = 18288 (18.288 Mega Bit) > > Which is certainly impressive considering the fact that its 10 radios away, > and 8 hops as the traceroute shows! > > But it is Still a bit above half the 30 or 35 Mbit you were previously > quoting. > > -Michael > > > > Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: > It is TCP. We do not use UDP since it gives a reading that will never be > seen by a customer doing an FTP download. We are looking at building in > iperf so we should be able to do tcp or udp tests in future. I have a > network from Valemount, BC to McBride, BC that has about 100 km of repeater > distances. The shot is split in half with mountain shots at each (43 km > each) and about 5 km from each mountain top to the POP in each town. We can > pull over 20 mbps from POP to POP. It is 8 hops and goes through 10 radios. > I have pasted a speed test from the POP in Valemount to the POP in McBride. > Both are Linux systems with 1 GHz or better processors that we use for > firewall and bandwidth control. Also I have the traceroute to show the > hops. lon-home:~/staros # starutil-1.14 10.10.29.1 password -rx rx rate: > 2286 KB/sec (Press Ctrl-C to exit) lon-home:~/staros # lon-home:~/staros # > traceroute 10.10.29.1 traceroute to 10.10.29.1 (10.10.29.1), 30 hops max, 40 > byte packets 1 192.168.250.10 0.430 ms 0.401 ms 0.496 ms 2 10.10.48.254 > 1.655 ms 1.447 ms 1.185 ms 3 10.10.227.254 2.686 ms 1.965 ms 5.428 ms 4 > 10.10.12.4 5.469 ms 3.250 ms 4.501 ms 5 10.10.47.253 4.946 ms 4.415 ms > 3.581 ms 6 10.10.51.254 6.077 ms 6.472 ms 8.063 ms 7 10.14.99.254 12.615 > ms * 5.777 ms 8 10.10.29.1 6.569 ms 7.295 ms 7.686 ms lon-home:~/staros > # Lonnie On 4/11/06, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lonnie, Is that TCP or UDP? Travis Microserv Lonnie Nunweiler > wrote: Using the 533 MHz IXP-420 we can get an Atheros to just over 35 > mbps of non compressible data and almost 90 mbps of compressible > data. Lonnie On 4/11/06, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dan, We > had this discussion a few weeks ago, although it may have been on another > wireless list. What processor and setup are you using to get 30Mbps? The > fastest I have seen with routerboard 532's in a p2p config is 20Mbps of TCP > traffic passing thru the RB's. Do you have outdoor enclosures? Travis > Microserv [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe that the atheros chipset > is capped at 35Mbps, although users of MT have claimed higher using very > fast cpu's. I have several atheros/MT/nstream links (PTP and PTMP) that > push 30Mbps…. Pretty impressive throughput, plus adjustable channels, plus > QoS for VoIP and all the other features available make a nice > system Dan Metcalf Wireless Broadband Systems www.wbisp.com > 781-566-2053 ext 6201 1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:28 AM To: > WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP Hi, > Does anyone know actual TCP throughput with StarOS on their 533mhz boards in > just a point to point config, using 20mhz of spectrum? Travis Micros
Re: [WISPA] out-sourced billing/collections
We found outsourcing tracking the customer billing was not a savings because we have to much stuff linked to customer records, that would be just replicating the work. For example, having customerrecords links to tickets, scripting provisioning, etc. or having Third party outsourced support centers able to access the data, or link to. But the bigger problem was relationships with third party, agent, reselers, and property owners. They all needed to get paid based on the cost end users paid for service, and which customer's were theirs. We didn't find any outsourced solutions, nor in house solutions that did this well. The closest thing was Engage IP. So I believe Outsourced custoemr records is only appropriate if a solution can track the wholesale/reseller/parner relationships. If your business does not do these things, then outsourcing billing is OK. I suggest that small companies look to Quickbooks, to help speed their billing, until they have systems and/or staff able to handle their own inhouse system appropriately. But thats just my opinion. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 8:02 PM Subject: [WISPA] out-sourced billing/collections As we grow we have more of a need to outsource the billing/collections or hire somebody inhouse Is anybody outsourcing the billing? Dan Metcalf Wireless Broadband Systems www.wbisp.com 781-566-2053 ext 6201 1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783 [EMAIL PROTECTED] support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/307 - Release Date: 04/10/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Government grants
Anyone know any thing about HUD Block grants, these guys qualified for? Looks like these guys got government funding from three different government sources, including the feds to deploy broadband. "one of the most significant WiMAX deployments to date," regional Midwest service provider Arialink Broadband says it will build out a broadband wireless network for all of Muskegon County, MI, using 802.16e equipment from Samsung. Muskegon County borders Lake Michigan. It is about 200 miles northeast of Chicago and 200 miles northwest west of Detroit. The network is a public-private partnership funded by a $2.2 million federal grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, together with a $4.5 million loan from the state of Michigan's Economic Development Corporation. Arialink CEO Jason Schreiber said the company will invest $6 million to build the network, aiming to provide Internet access at speeds of 3 Mbps at a cost of $18.99 a month." Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Steve Stroh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:38 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP John: Here's my working definition of "carrier grade": Designed for use by carriers Suitable for use by carriers Sufficiently reliable for use by carriers There is MUCH that goes into a product designed for use by carriers. It's expensive and a tough market, so a lot of vendors don't try. Here are just a few features that are "carrier grade requirements" from my perspective: * Designed for use in all conceivable weather elements * Designed for long operational use with minimal attention (in the WISP market, one measure is that it doesn't reboot itself, or require regular reboots) * Designed for easy and fast repair * The vendor stocks ample replacement units deployed geographically for fast supply. * Support expertise by the vendor is readily available (excellent, easy-to-access tech support). Note that such support is almost never free, and carriers don't expect it to be. When they need help, they need it NOW and need to get their systems back online fast. (Carriers often have mandated time-to-repair maximums by regulatory agencies.) * Subtle features like strain relief on all connectors, meeting the telecom industry requirements for rack mounting, built-in protection for power line surges and lightning. * Superb monitoring and remote control capabilities * Offer continuous VERY-in-depth training programs at the factory so that carriers can get their personnel FULLY up to speed on a product. Again, this almost never free, and carriers don't expect it to be. * Offer continuous product improvement, bug fixes, recalls when appropriate, and does so proactively when an issue is identified, and does so in a way to minimize downtime such as offering proactive replacement units. Etc. Regarding "Alvarion versus WISPs"... it's pretty simple. By offering "more like carrier-grade" products, Alvarion saw FAR more market demand by carriers, public safety, enterprise than they saw in the WISP market. They are willing to sell to WISPs, but few WISPs are willing to take the time to truly understand Alvarion's value proposition which involves FAR more than mere price of the product. You've finally come around to this view John, and you'll discover that you have a lot of company in that view - which isn't (widely) represented on this list or necessarily within WISPA. That's because operators who have spent the money for quality gear like Alvarion's generally don't have NEARLY as many issues with such gear that require "group support"... and such operators don't wish to associate their businesses with the "we'll just hack up a Linksys AP and have cheap gear" attitude that a lot of people in the telecom industry equate with WISPs. Is Alvarion arrogant? Yes, at times, and certain individuals. But I think that's mostly a lot of pride and recognition that they were one of the pioneering companies in making it possible to offer carrier-grade services in license-exempt spectrum - something that the telecom industry KNEW could NOT be done. It's also the case that Alvarion offers the broadest product line in Broadband Wireless Internet Access - licensed and license-exempt, fixed and mobile, high-capacity and low-capacity, etc. Alvarion has very capable competitors in various segments, but I can't think of any company that competes head-to-head with Alvarion in all segments, even Airspan. Thanks, Steve On Apr 11, 2006, at 20:51, John Scrivner wrote: I decided to do some reading on the term "carrier-grade" and have found the following to be what is considered a definition in relation to our industry. One random source on the web refers to this as, "A term that implies a system that is designed to have increased availability and timeliness to meet the requir
Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
Lonnie, Unfortuneately, not having UDP tests, does not allow accurate results. The reason is that UDP will show the point at which packet loss will occur, and at what percentage. Without that similar data, a TCP test is pointless. I see some people do TCP speed tests (a method other than FTP), and it goes full capacity minus the percent packet loss of a percent or so. But then when a FTP gets done performance drops to a few hundred kb. The reason is FTP slows itself down to attempt to reduce packetloss. IN many wireless systems, the packetloss stays consistent and can not be removed by reducing speed, therefore the speed just keeps going slower and slower and slower until it crawls. A TCP test also does not show consistency of a link, or sparatic slow down, as they all get averaged out over the time period of the test. If there are slowdown or hesitance on a wireless link using a UDP test, the packetloss is instantly seen. Doing a TCP test may show peek speed or average speed, but it does not show the ability to deliver consistent speed, what most companies need that are buying wireless to replace T1 lines. Relying on TCP test alone, limits your product to a lower grade product, less than it can be. An adequate test, does not need to be a UDP test, it can also be a layer2 test. The most valuable tool of Trango for example is its Layer2 Linktest, that shows throughput, and most importantly packetloss while performing that test. It gives the abilty to run a test that takes priority over any other traffic on the link, to get the true full performance of that link at that moment in time. It allows an integrator to instantly be able to determine the health of their links with total accuracy, quickly, without first disconnecting clients, that can be complicated, when multiple Linux re-configures might be needed to stop all other traffic. For radios that don't have their own MAC, Iperf is one way to get most of the data collected. Measuring packet loss is more important than measuring top speed in my mind. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:54 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP It is TCP. We do not use UDP since it gives a reading that will never be seen by a customer doing an FTP download. We are looking at building in iperf so we should be able to do tcp or udp tests in future. I have a network from Valemount, BC to McBride, BC that has about 100 km of repeater distances. The shot is split in half with mountain shots at each (43 km each) and about 5 km from each mountain top to the POP in each town. We can pull over 20 mbps from POP to POP. It is 8 hops and goes through 10 radios. I have pasted a speed test from the POP in Valemount to the POP in McBride. Both are Linux systems with 1 GHz or better processors that we use for firewall and bandwidth control. Also I have the traceroute to show the hops. lon-home:~/staros # starutil-1.14 10.10.29.1 password -rx rx rate: 2286 KB/sec (Press Ctrl-C to exit) lon-home:~/staros # lon-home:~/staros # traceroute 10.10.29.1 traceroute to 10.10.29.1 (10.10.29.1), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 192.168.250.10 0.430 ms 0.401 ms 0.496 ms 2 10.10.48.254 1.655 ms 1.447 ms 1.185 ms 3 10.10.227.254 2.686 ms 1.965 ms 5.428 ms 4 10.10.12.4 5.469 ms 3.250 ms 4.501 ms 5 10.10.47.253 4.946 ms 4.415 ms 3.581 ms 6 10.10.51.254 6.077 ms 6.472 ms 8.063 ms 7 10.14.99.254 12.615 ms * 5.777 ms 8 10.10.29.1 6.569 ms 7.295 ms 7.686 ms lon-home:~/staros # Lonnie On 4/11/06, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lonnie, Is that TCP or UDP? Travis Microserv Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: Using the 533 MHz IXP-420 we can get an Atheros to just over 35 mbps of non compressible data and almost 90 mbps of compressible data. Lonnie On 4/11/06, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dan, We had this discussion a few weeks ago, although it may have been on another wireless list. What processor and setup are you using to get 30Mbps? The fastest I have seen with routerboard 532's in a p2p config is 20Mbps of TCP traffic passing thru the RB's. Do you have outdoor enclosures? Travis Microserv [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe that the atheros chipset is capped at 35Mbps, although users of MT have claimed higher using very fast cpu's. I have several atheros/MT/nstream links (PTP and PTMP) that push 30Mbps…. Pretty impressive throughput, plus adjustable channels, plus QoS for VoIP and all the other features available make a nice system Dan Metcalf Wireless Broadband Systems www.wbisp.com 781-566-2053 ext 6201 1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783 [EMAIL PROTECTED] support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
PS. UDP tests usually need to be run with Dynamic Modulation features disabled. ISPs that delver telco grade services usually need to operate without Dynamic moduilation anyway, to consistently guarantee the link capacity available to tenants, and set at a speed that can deliver reliabilty consistently, in my opinion. I know some orthogon users may differ in opinion.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:36 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP Using the 533 MHz IXP-420 we can get an Atheros to just over 35 mbps of non compressible data and almost 90 mbps of compressible data. Lonnie On 4/11/06, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dan, We had this discussion a few weeks ago, although it may have been on another wireless list. What processor and setup are you using to get 30Mbps? The fastest I have seen with routerboard 532's in a p2p config is 20Mbps of TCP traffic passing thru the RB's. Do you have outdoor enclosures? Travis Microserv [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe that the atheros chipset is capped at 35Mbps, although users of MT have claimed higher using very fast cpu's. I have several atheros/MT/nstream links (PTP and PTMP) that push 30Mbps…. Pretty impressive throughput, plus adjustable channels, plus QoS for VoIP and all the other features available make a nice system Dan Metcalf Wireless Broadband Systems www.wbisp.com 781-566-2053 ext 6201 1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783 [EMAIL PROTECTED] support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:28 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP Hi, Does anyone know actual TCP throughput with StarOS on their 533mhz boards in just a point to point config, using 20mhz of spectrum? Travis Microserv Paul Hendry wrote: All the details are on the Valemount web site http://www.staros.com/starvx/ Cheers, P. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Goodin Sent: 11 April 2006 09:15 To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: RE: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP So... Who makes them?, how much? Hi Richard, This cloaking mechanism is the 5MHz and 10MHz channel sizes that George was referring to on the Star WAR boards. Works really well and even seems to improve signal quality. Cheers, P. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Goodin Sent: 11 April 2006 08:09 To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP Guys; These all sound great. I was reading just a couple months back about a WISP operator that had a severe problem. Just a few yards away, maybe 300 feet, another guy put up his tower. I think they were both on 2.4 GHZ, and someone suggested a different AP that would not even be detected by conventional systems. Something about nonstandard bandwidth, channel spacing or coding. I really feel that stealth is best here. These other guys have been in business for a while and could cause trouble that I do not need. Lee Trango does make a good product. I still have 2 Sunstream AP's in use. They are like Timex watches. I'm using Star War boards. A little bit more than the trango s. The 2 card boards in a 5 gig rootenna let me use the 2nd card for an omni. Speeds are about 20+ megs or so and I cloak down to 5MHz and 10MHz channel sizes. One of the things I've been doing is slapping up repeaters all over the place. Cheap as hell, about 400.00 or so. Lately I've ran lmr400 into some of my customers attics and installed an omni for their home wifi. We tend to service our customers right to the pc and it's a lot better router than a linksys. And I have happier customers and I'm happier. The 2 port and the 4 port both have dual ethernet as well. Pretty versatile product. Lonnie has come along way with the new war platform. George Travis Johnson wrote: That's on quantity 30 $149 each. 5.8ghz, dual polarity, up to 3 miles (add $40 for a dish and it goes up to 13 miles) and delivers up to 10Mbps. Hard to beat! And with SmartPolling on the AP, you can get hundreds of customers per sector. Travis Microserv Rick Smith wrote: that's only quantity (large!) pricing isn't it ? Brian Rohrbacher wrote: If it's pretty absent of trees you might look at 5.8. Trango has that cpe for $150. Not going to find any propriety gear cheaper. Richard Goodin wrote: I have been planning my WISP for about a year, and have yet to begin delivery of bandwidth to customers. My choice for service delivery was 802.11b, bu
Re: [WISPA] Re: CPE Cost Ideas Needed
Blair, I agree, our environments are different, each allowing each of us to deliver different business models, each appropriate for our own markets. One of the things I'm learning is, as a wireless provider, I live in the wrong town :-) I'd make more money in this business, if I moved to an underserved area! But I believe in competition, evolution and survival of the fittest. Our competitive environment hardens us. We are adapting to our environment in order to survive, and hopefully one day as a result, we will thrive. Getting better every day. PS. Like the home tower plan. Tom DeReggiRapidDSL & Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Blair Davis To: WISPA General List Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 11:05 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: CPE Cost Ideas Needed Tom, >$59.95 per month small business, no contrac I'm not sure how that is a good thing. Risk with no contract, and no margin to justify the risk. If its a retail place with 1 or 2 computers we got a asyncronis plan for $99, but won't pick up the phone for less than $150. > $899 including a 70ft bracketed tower. That I want to see. Whats the breakdown of your budget for it? And time for erection? 256Kbit/sec up/down. Small business is less than 6 computers. What risk? equipment and such are totally covered by the install costs tower sections, $75 each x 7= $525. Concrete $35. Bracket $35. Misc. rebar, bolts, gravel, mast, clamps and such $25. total tower parts... $620Shipping? no. Truck delivery from a local dist who makes a delivery loop each weekRadio equipment and antenna varies from $150-250. Average = $200 Labor 4-8 man-hours. Average is 6. $25 per man-hour. Labor = $150Total cost is $970. Cust pays $899 upfront. our normal install labor costs are paid for by the first months service charge of $39.95. On the towers, we accept the the first 2 month service charge is labor recovery.In this county, no permits required for 70 ft or less. No additional fees. And tower install, (for a bracketed tower), is a flat $899. often, the tower is only 40-50 ft, saving us the cost of 2-3 sections as well as the extra labor.Install time for a bracketed tower is 2-4 weeks, depending on time of year and weather conditions.We are a small shop. on some things, we can do well on our pricing. On others, like the 900MHz systems I am looking at, our lack of size hurts us bad...Tom DeReggi wrote: Tom DeReggiRapidDSL & Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Blair Davis To: WISPA General List Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 3:20 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: CPE Cost Ideas Needed I have to agree with Mark here. We are using the same model he is and we have more work than we know what to do with$39.95 per month home, no contract / $59.95 per month small business, no contract / Higher rates for special services and/or special QoS, contract requiredInstalls start at $199 and range to $899 including a 70ft bracketed tower. Special cases go higher One subdivision just approved $5500 for a freestanding tower to serve their 30 homes in a small valley. We own all radio equipment.We clear our equipment and supplies cost for any new install from the install fee. Sometimes, when we 'recycle' a radio, we even make money on an install, but we don't plan on it. The labor part of the install is covered by the first month or so's fees.We allow self install if the customer buys his own equipment. No setup charges for self install but unit must be approved prior to install and must meet our snr requirements.We no longer try to compete head-to-head with the cable or telephone companies. They can have the $15 per month bottom feeders. There is way too much churn in those markets for us.Another thing that helps us is that we are more than an ISP. We are a full service computer shop as well. When our customer calls in with a problem, and the radio gear checks out, we don't pass them off as a problem in your computer, we hand the call to our computer tech who can usually diagnose the problem over the phone. If we go out and the problem is in the computer, not our radio equipment, we waive the service call charge if the customer has our shop fix the computer, and we will pick it up for free since we are there.We credit a new customers first months service charge as a discount to the referring customer. We started out getting 4-5 calls a month for new service. We now get 5-7 a WEEK. All word
Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
This may be the case, but the test we perform seems to describe what we see in real life use. As long as you have consistency it does not matter what you do. The ability to compare apples to apples is what is truly important, and since we began to use TCP many years ago, we still continue to do so, since it gives us a relevance and comparison to the systems in current use. My TCP numbers are lower than you'll get with a UDP test, so I am quite happy to compare my TCP to UDP because my TCP numbers are pretty nearly as high as numbers I hear reported for other high end systems that test with UDP. For instance, our TCP numbers on a WRAP board were always in the 23 to 25 mbps range yet a UDP test would pull almost 35 mbps, which is a number I have never seen even in my dreams doing an FTP transfer (with the WRAP boards). Typical numbers were always in the 1,800 to 2,000 KBytes/sec as reported by the FTP client. Our goal is to give you numbers you will see in real life. After all, your user is going to be ragging on you based on the FTP results they see. I am always amazed at how labels get applied. To call something a lower grade product because of a test method sure indicates a conclusion that needs to be re-examined. Results are what count, not how pretty you look or how good you sound. We have come pretty close to the goal of real world numbers, so I am not fazed at all by your lower grade product ranking. It is strange to have to lie to the customer to get a high grade product rating. Maybe we don't need that, and for the most part my users don't want it either. They don't want packet loss either. Most of them prefer to have the whole file delivered intact. Regards, Lonnie On 4/12/06, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lonnie, > > Unfortuneately, not having UDP tests, does not allow accurate results. The > reason is that UDP will show the point at which packet loss will occur, and > at what percentage. Without that similar data, a TCP test is pointless. I > see some people do TCP speed tests (a method other than FTP), and it goes > full capacity minus the percent packet loss of a percent or so. But then > when a FTP gets done performance drops to a few hundred kb. The reason is > FTP slows itself down to attempt to reduce packetloss. IN many wireless > systems, the packetloss stays consistent and can not be removed by reducing > speed, therefore the speed just keeps going slower and slower and slower > until it crawls. A TCP test also does not show consistency of a link, or > sparatic slow down, as they all get averaged out over the time period of the > test. If there are slowdown or hesitance on a wireless link using a UDP > test, the packetloss is instantly seen. Doing a TCP test may show peek > speed or average speed, but it does not show the ability to deliver > consistent speed, what most companies need that are buying wireless to > replace T1 lines. > > Relying on TCP test alone, limits your product to a lower grade product, > less than it can be. An adequate test, does not need to be a UDP test, it > can also be a layer2 test. The most valuable tool of Trango for example is > its Layer2 Linktest, that shows throughput, and most importantly packetloss > while performing that test. It gives the abilty to run a test that takes > priority over any other traffic on the link, to get the true full > performance of that link at that moment in time. It allows an integrator to > instantly be able to determine the health of their links with total > accuracy, quickly, without first disconnecting clients, that can be > complicated, when multiple Linux re-configures might be needed to stop all > other traffic. > > For radios that don't have their own MAC, Iperf is one way to get most of > the data collected. Measuring packet loss is more important than measuring > top speed in my mind. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:54 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP > > > It is TCP. We do not use UDP since it gives a reading that will never > be seen by a customer doing an FTP download. We are looking at > building in iperf so we should be able to do tcp or udp tests in > future. > > I have a network from Valemount, BC to McBride, BC that has about 100 > km of repeater distances. The shot is split in half with mountain > shots at each (43 km each) and about 5 km from each mountain top to > the POP in each town. We can pull over 20 mbps from POP to POP. It > is 8 hops and goes through 10 radios. I have pasted a speed test from > the POP in Valemount to the POP in McBride. Both are Linux systems > with 1 GHz or better processors that we use for firewall and bandwidth > control. Also I have the traceroute to show the hops. > > lon-home:~/staros # starutil-1.14 10.10.29.1 password -r
[WISPA] request for comment w.r.t Canadian 700mhz
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/insmt-gst.nsf/en/sf08457e.html# As this requires a smart and intelligent response, and as I've always been accused of being rude and obnoxious ( maybe I should write technical manuals) I would like a template of some sorts for all Canadian wisps to use. I am prepared to head this up as a spokesperson as a WISPA member (by the way they have heard of WISPA). I have made contact am prepared to be our liaison. Yes I do have ulterior motives. :-) -- You have a Good Day now, Carl A Jeptha http://www.airnet.ca office 905 349-2084 Emergency only Pager 905 377-6900 skype cajeptha -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tech Support Call Center Interest ?
Rick, I'm sure you'd do well at anything you put your mind to, and I'm sure you are capable. However, the only advice I can give is... The key to success is finding the time to manage your company. The only real person that can be trusted to do that well are the people that have stake in that compnay. In my company's case its me personally. There is only so much time in the day. A business owner needs to decide what business they want to be in, and then focus on that venture, its all one mortal human can handle in a competitive environment and succeed. A CALL CENTER is a Full time business, just like your WISP. Helping your WISP clients, means staff is not available to help Call Center clients at the same time, and vice versa. These problems go away, when both companies scale large enough to have their own staff. However, getting a company to that stage, of self operating, is where most business owners fail, its not easy. You are no longer able to pick up the slack on your own. Franchises often make it. But getting two businesses to that stage simultaneously is near impossible. So should your perogative to be a Call Center, go for it, thats what the American Dream is all about, you have just a good a chance as any one else. There is also a big need for a call center, where the owner has real world WISP experience to add credability to supporting WISPs. But to do a good job at a call center, be realistic that your WISP surely would sacrify to allow it to happen. Which business do you want to be in? Personally, its a struggle I face regularly. (WISP, Network integrator, Hardware reseller, router manufacturer, Software developer). Opportunity is on every corner, but you can't do it all well, which do you take? A WISP clearly is NOT the least risky of all the options out there. However, I chose to be a WISP. I am banking on reoccuring revenue, one day without requiring reoccuring work to match, and realistic about the fact I hate to be caught behind a desk 24x7. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Rick Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 8:51 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tech Support Call Center Interest ? Ya know Ron, that was uncalled for. Wow, ripped apart on-list. Great atmosphere for getting some feedback on a business idea. Never again. Hey Harnish, how about that ? Argh. Ron Johnson wrote: Guys We have been support ISPs for over 10 years. Dialup, Cable, DSL, or wireless. Yes it can get complicated. But then again it is our business to know how to get the job done. Give me a call if we can help you with your Tech support and Customer service calls O BTW we price ours at a much better rate that these guys you are talking about. Ron Johnson President National Support Center Inc. 800-203-7961 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Nash Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 6:53 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tech Support Call Center Interest ? Google GTC tech support. They are reasonable. Level 1 and level 2 techs allow them to get their costs down. If you have something specifically for wisps that would be more valuable. But there is a lot involved in doing this on. As a new customer of yours, I would expect you to familiarize your techs with my way of doing things so you can be useful for my customers when they call. My business partner owns a call center and we have looked at doing this a little without much interest in taking the plunge to do it. GTC had a hefty startup fee (I think it was $5k) to have one of their managers get familiar with my system and develop training for their L1 & L2 techs. Then they took the number of subscribers we had and made the base monthly fee ($1 x # of subs). That gives you (1 minute x # of subs) of 'tech time' per month. Any overage would be about $.60 per minute for that month. Not a bad deal. I didn't feel that the diversity of my system lent itself well to a 3rd party tech support at the time, and since then everything I have chosen to deploy has had a consideration given to 'Call Center Tech Support'. Whether we do the tech support or not, it is worth it to spend time and money to streamline tech support methods so we can hire support personnel that are further down on the food chain. Mark -Original Message- From: Rick Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2006 18:04:12 To:WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Tech Support Call Center Interest ? I have a customer that just installed a $100k phone system and is lookin for other uses. Having experience in both call center mangement and tech support department creation / operations and management, I've got half a mind to sit a couple of technical people down and start up a technical support call center and answering service, wi
Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
What we do is measure non compressible data and that becomes the absolute max I will let someone ask for. That means with compressible data we do better than they expect. No harm done, we figure. Lonnie On 4/12/06, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > PS. UDP tests usually need to be run with Dynamic Modulation features > disabled. > > ISPs that delver telco grade services usually need to operate without > Dynamic moduilation anyway, to consistently guarantee the link capacity > available to tenants, and set at a speed that can deliver reliabilty > consistently, in my opinion. I know some orthogon users may differ in > opinion.. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:36 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP > > > Using the 533 MHz IXP-420 we can get an Atheros to just over 35 mbps > of non compressible data and almost 90 mbps of compressible data. > > Lonnie > > On 4/11/06, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dan, > > > > We had this discussion a few weeks ago, although it may have been on > > another wireless list. > > > > What processor and setup are you using to get 30Mbps? The fastest I have > > seen with routerboard 532's in a p2p config is 20Mbps of TCP traffic > > passing > > thru the RB's. Do you have outdoor enclosures? > > > > Travis > > Microserv > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > > I believe that the atheros chipset is capped at 35Mbps, although users of > > MT > > have claimed higher using very fast cpu's. > > > > > > > > I have several atheros/MT/nstream links (PTP and PTMP) that push 30Mbps…. > > Pretty impressive throughput, plus adjustable channels, plus QoS for VoIP > > and all the other features available make a nice system > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dan Metcalf > > Wireless Broadband Systems > > www.wbisp.com > > 781-566-2053 ext 6201 > > > > 1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis > > Johnson > > Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:28 AM > > To: WISPA General List > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > Does anyone know actual TCP throughput with StarOS on their 533mhz boards > > in just a point to point config, using 20mhz of spectrum? > > > > Travis > > Microserv > > > > Paul Hendry wrote: All the details are on the Valemount web site > > > > http://www.staros.com/starvx/ > > > > Cheers, > > > > P. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Richard Goodin > > Sent: 11 April 2006 09:15 > > To: wireless@wispa.org > > Subject: RE: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP > > > > So... Who makes them?, how much? > > > > > > > > > > Hi Richard, > > > > This cloaking mechanism is the 5MHz and 10MHz channel sizes that > > George was referring to on the Star WAR boards. Works really well and > > even > > seems to improve signal quality. > > > > Cheers, > > > > P. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Richard Goodin > > Sent: 11 April 2006 08:09 > > To: wireless@wispa.org > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP > > > > > > > > > > Guys; > > These all sound great. I was reading just a couple months back about a > > WISP > > > > operator that had a severe problem. Just a few yards away, maybe 300 > > feet, > > another guy put up his tower. I think they were both on 2.4 GHZ, and > > someone suggested a different AP that would not even be detected by > > conventional systems. Something about nonstandard bandwidth, channel > > spacing or coding. I really feel that stealth is best here. These other > > guys have been in business for a while and could cause trouble that I do > > not > > > > need. > > > > Lee > > > > > > Trango does make a good product. I still have 2 Sunstream AP's in use. > > > > They > > > > > > > > are like Timex watches. > > > > I'm using Star War boards. A little bit more than the trango s. The 2 > > > > card > > > > > > boards in a 5 gig rootenna let me use the 2nd card for an omni. > > Speeds are about 20+ megs or so and I cloak down to 5MHz and 10MHz > > > > channel > > > > > > sizes. > > > > One of the things I've been doing is slapping up repeaters all over the > > place. Cheap as hell, about 400.00 or so. > > > > Lately I've ran lmr400 into some of my customers attics and installed an > > omni for their home wifi. We tend to service our customers right to the > > > > pc > > > > > > and it's a lot better router than a linksys. And I have happier customers > > and I'm happier. > > > > The 2 port and the 4 port
Re: [WISPA] Re: CPE Cost Ideas Needed
One of the reasons to use Trango is All products, 900, 2.4, 5.3, 5.8. PTP, all have a common sceme. Linktest command - to diagnose link health. Dual Polarity on the Fly - to quickly adapt, and repair network interference. Low Price - For small communities deployments, lowest CPE price on market, regarding Fox Atlas. Easy configuration sceme- offering remote management, Layer 2 security, large packets (VLAN pass), uninhibited bridging. Polling mechanism- To deliver consistent performance as the network grows. Built in basic surge protection. Support excellent. You can't lose going this path. Plus, Trango gear has shown to hold its value, if you fail, and need to liquidate your gear after the fact. One of the reasons to use Self made gear (Mikrotik, StarOS) 1. Flexible to expand your network at rock bottom cost, home to home realy with jsut a $100 add-on to existing CPE, without needing a direct shot to the central tower from every home. This is not only a cost saving in equipment, but in time, saving getting approval for installation plans with home owners or MTU property managers, or preventing the need to even get approvals. 2. Latest trend gear, available NOW, to deploy today. In other words, OFDM APs available. Has its benefits, which can not be denied. However, I chose Trango. If needing carrier class gear, that can consistently deliver 20 mbps speeds or higher per sector, Alvarion may also be an excellent choice. But its about double the cost, and you lose flexibilty in many areas of business. Tom DeReggiRapidDSL & Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Joshua M. Andrews To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 8:53 PM Subject: [WISPA] Re: CPE Cost Ideas Needed Chris: I've heard so much about Trango that I'm really intrigued! What is it that you use for 900 MHz? Why would I choose Trango over WaveRider anyway? Thanks. - Pete: Thank you very much for the detailed response. I wouldn't say I will be desperate as I'm doing it mostly as a benefit to the community and money is a side-note for me (I already have a great career so I'm really in it for the fun). Have you tried Trango's 900 MHz, and if so, did it compare well to WaveRider? Secondly, what equipment for the 802.11b have you had the success with? Thanks again! -- JohnnyO: It seems to be the consensus is not to have any contracts for the service. It also seems to be the consensus that other successful WISPs are having great success not charging rock bottom prices. I've heard great things about WaveRider in general and it seems virtually everyone also says that if I offer more than 1 Mbps to customers then I'm pushing it with WaveRider. You're right about the local business comments.. I've seen it work very well in our "tight-nit" community. I probably should up the price a bit and rethink my WaveRider strategy. I HAVE to have 900 MHz.. other WISPs have seriously come and gone with their 2.4 GHz stuff due to the trees and so I'm stuck between a rock (WaveRider) and a hard place (Trango). Any ideas in this regard? Thank you kindly. - Mark: Thank you very much for your comments. I'm planning on the snail pace to get started. :) Brian: I can probably help you with this. What OS is the sub using? What kind of backup do you want? Data only, Ghosting, Full backups with incremental, how often, etc? How many machines, is this server-based, or client-based? Matt: You stated that you "used trango in the past and don't use them anymore"... who do you use now? Thanks. Blair: I wanna be your friend. I need hand-holding and you sound like you were in the position I'm in today and can really help. What equipment are you using? Thanks. Sincerely, Joshua -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
Lonnie, Is the WAR/staros platform working PTMP or is it PTP? Dan Metcalf Wireless Broadband Systems www.wbisp.com 781-566-2053 ext 6201 1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783 [EMAIL PROTECTED] support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Lonnie Nunweiler > Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 8:07 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP > > What we do is measure non compressible data and that becomes the > absolute max I will let someone ask for. That means with compressible > data we do better than they expect. No harm done, we figure. > > Lonnie > > On 4/12/06, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > PS. UDP tests usually need to be run with Dynamic Modulation features > > disabled. > > > > ISPs that delver telco grade services usually need to operate without > > Dynamic moduilation anyway, to consistently guarantee the link capacity > > available to tenants, and set at a speed that can deliver reliabilty > > consistently, in my opinion. I know some orthogon users may differ in > > opinion.. > > > > Tom DeReggi > > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "WISPA General List" > > Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:36 PM > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP > > > > > > Using the 533 MHz IXP-420 we can get an Atheros to just over 35 mbps > > of non compressible data and almost 90 mbps of compressible data. > > > > Lonnie > > > > On 4/11/06, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Dan, > > > > > > We had this discussion a few weeks ago, although it may have been on > > > another wireless list. > > > > > > What processor and setup are you using to get 30Mbps? The fastest I have > > > seen with routerboard 532's in a p2p config is 20Mbps of TCP traffic > > > passing > > > thru the RB's. Do you have outdoor enclosures? > > > > > > Travis > > > Microserv > > > > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that the atheros chipset is capped at 35Mbps, although users of > > > MT > > > have claimed higher using very fast cpu's. > > > > > > > > > > > > I have several atheros/MT/nstream links (PTP and PTMP) that push 30Mbps…. > > > Pretty impressive throughput, plus adjustable channels, plus QoS for VoIP > > > and all the other features available make a nice system > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dan Metcalf > > > Wireless Broadband Systems > > > www.wbisp.com > > > 781-566-2053 ext 6201 > > > > > > 1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783 > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis > > > Johnson > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:28 AM > > > To: WISPA General List > > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Does anyone know actual TCP throughput with StarOS on their 533mhz boards > > > in just a point to point config, using 20mhz of spectrum? > > > > > > Travis > > > Microserv > > > > > > Paul Hendry wrote: All the details are on the Valemount web site > > > > > > http://www.staros.com/starvx/ > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > P. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > > Behalf Of Richard Goodin > > > Sent: 11 April 2006 09:15 > > > To: wireless@wispa.org > > > Subject: RE: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP > > > > > > So... Who makes them?, how much? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Richard, > > > > > > This cloaking mechanism is the 5MHz and 10MHz channel sizes that > > > George was referring to on the Star WAR boards. Works really well and > > > even > > > seems to improve signal quality. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > P. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > > Behalf Of Richard Goodin > > > Sent: 11 April 2006 08:09 > > > To: wireless@wispa.org > > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys; > > > These all sound great. I was reading just a couple months back about a > > > WISP > > > > > > operator that had a severe problem. Just a few yards away, maybe 300 > > > feet, > > > another guy put up his tower. I think they were both on 2.4 GHZ, and > > > someone suggested a different AP that would not even be detected by > > > conventional systems. Something about nonstandard bandwidth, channel > > > spacing or coding. I really feel that stealth is best here. These other > > > guys have been in business for a while and could cause trouble that I do > > > not > > > > > > need. > > > > > > Lee > > > > > > > > > Trango does make a good product. I still have 2 Sunstream AP's in use. > > >
Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
Here's the reply for all answers. Look at the name of the association. WISPA. We are not carriers, we Do Not get listed on the stock-exchange, we do not have money to burn. This is the reason for our existence. We deliver the goods where these fools fear to tread. A Microcell with 10 customers is profitable. Follow the 10% rule - 100 people in the community of your AP. People this is Rural Countryside, where even your Cellphone don't work here most times, but we do (I have a Skypeout account to make calls). Don't forget your 911 VOIP database. When you call 911 here, you hope the fire truck driver lives down the road from you. He knows it is the brick house on the north east corner. My total area of service does not have a population of 1 million. Explain the $1,000,000.00 you want me to spend. Tranzeo and Company got the message - here's a CPE for $5.00 - I'll take it, can I have twenty (don't know where they are going, but the price is right (bang,bang,bang, God my head is going to hurt tomorrow - this brickwall is not giving)) I have Wave rider in the garbage, I have Cirronet in the Garbage, I have Linksys in the Garbage, I have Engenius in the Garbage. How long have I been in business as a WISP - since 1999. Now I can guarantee you that if I had Alvarion/carrier grade vendor some of its models would be in the garbage. (you know what carrier grades means - VAR Value added reseller - charge more for the future services you are going to deliver, if needed). Now Today I climb a tower and replaced a CB3 (that wisps swear by) with a lowly Hawking HWBA11 (I don't even think Hawkings make them anymore (damn Everyready Bunny stole the idea - just keep on going). All of my CB3's are showing their age. My Tranzeo CPQ's, 6000's and 5.8's are doing fine (Including the one that flew off the vehicle at a high rate of speed (95kph - thats' what the speedo said) )Forgot it on the roof - so I'm over 50 - sue me. Vendor if your equipment don't follow a standard I won't buy it If your equipment does not offer a ROI in three months max, no way If your equipment cost more than $300.00 installed no customer wants it Notice I am still waiting for 900mhz equipment Oh by the way this is my business, my clients, my area and I learnt the hard way what is good for my business. (by the time we had learnt how to use our Cirronet, we had to remove it, the industry had moved on. So I am thankful for the live I got out of our CB3's and Hawkings. But they are paid for and we made a "profit". Now we are replacing the radio's with Tranzeo 6000's and CPQ CPE's, unless we get a NLOS solution with bandwidth. End of Ramble, Sorry I took so long, :-) You have a Good Day now, Carl A Jeptha http://www.airnet.ca office 905 349-2084 Emergency only Pager 905 377-6900 skype cajeptha Steve Stroh wrote: John: Here's my working definition of "carrier grade": Designed for use by carriers Suitable for use by carriers Sufficiently reliable for use by carriers There is MUCH that goes into a product designed for use by carriers. It's expensive and a tough market, so a lot of vendors don't try. Here are just a few features that are "carrier grade requirements" from my perspective: * Designed for use in all conceivable weather elements * Designed for long operational use with minimal attention (in the WISP market, one measure is that it doesn't reboot itself, or require regular reboots) * Designed for easy and fast repair * The vendor stocks ample replacement units deployed geographically for fast supply. * Support expertise by the vendor is readily available (excellent, easy-to-access tech support). Note that such support is almost never free, and carriers don't expect it to be. When they need help, they need it NOW and need to get their systems back online fast. (Carriers often have mandated time-to-repair maximums by regulatory agencies.) * Subtle features like strain relief on all connectors, meeting the telecom industry requirements for rack mounting, built-in protection for power line surges and lightning. * Superb monitoring and remote control capabilities * Offer continuous VERY-in-depth training programs at the factory so that carriers can get their personnel FULLY up to speed on a product. Again, this almost never free, and carriers don't expect it to be. * Offer continuous product improvement, bug fixes, recalls when appropriate, and does so proactively when an issue is identified, and does so in a way to minimize downtime such as offering proactive replacement units. Etc. Regarding "Alvarion versus WISPs"... it's pretty simple. By offering "more like carrier-grade" products, Alvarion saw FAR more market demand by carriers, public safety, enterprise than they saw in the WISP market. They are willing to sell to WISPs, but few WISPs are willing to take the time to truly understand Alvarion's value proposition which involves FAR more than mere price of the product. You'v
Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
Steve, excellent points. except... (also see inline) By your definition of Carrier grade, I could argue that many WISPs that just so happen not to use Alvarion, may very well better meet the definition of carrier grade than the carriers themselves. One of the negatives about the Alvarion product is that they have fallen victom to the IBM syndrom. They try and be the best and standardize on that, but then they lock them selves into a box with a limited product, and get left behind as far as features and product enhancements. IBM lost the war to Clones, because Clones were able to innovate faster and deliver more competitive products sooner. Alvarion, has tried to full fill the role of carrier grade, probably better than any other manufacturer, from the perspective of the support level carrier demand, and quality of the manufacturing of the product. But ultimately, where does Alvarion stand technology wise? Are they leading? Thats debatable. For example: Alvarion still 1. Single Freq range per radio unit. 2. Single polarity per radio unit. Limitations even the cheapest manufacturers have overcome. Many businesses operational savings are being had by WISPs chosing other third party wireless gear, allowing their operations to be more carrier class. (less stock, fewer components needed per truck, easier ordering, lower pricing, consistent OS interfaces, etc). I'm not just targeting Alvarion in my complaint. How many manufactturers have taken advantage os new smart antenna technologies or FCC rules for higher power or new freq ranges? For companies like Alvarion to stay on top as a leading Carrier grade company, they are going to have to break out of the IBM mold, and start innovating quicker. They are starting to do that, by comming out with Wimax and 4.9Ghz gear quicker than other competitors in the space. Here's my working definition of "carrier grade": Designed for use by carriers Suitable for use by carriers Sufficiently reliable for use by carriers There is MUCH that goes into a product designed for use by carriers. It's expensive and a tough market, so a lot of vendors don't try. Here are just a few features that are "carrier grade requirements" from my perspective: * Designed for use in all conceivable weather elements WISPs pass. (Alvarion not required to do so) * Designed for long operational use with minimal attention (in the WISP market, one measure is that it doesn't reboot itself, or require regular reboots) WISPs fail. 1 minute outages every month or so must be tolerated. Even Alvarion is known for occasional auto system reboots when harsh interence is encountered. * Designed for easy and fast repair WISPs pass and shine. But not aware of any Carrier Telco that passes that requirement. Less likely with Alvarion, as more models need to be stocked, to ahve all conceivable replacement models. * The vendor stocks ample replacement units deployed geographically for fast supply. WISPs pass. Telco's generally Fail. Not many Companies keep $100,000 switches on hand for quick replacement. * Support expertise by the vendor is readily available (excellent, easy-to-access tech support). Note that such support is almost never free, and carriers don't expect it to be. When they need help, they need it NOW and need to get their systems back online fast. (Carriers often have mandated time-to-repair maximums by regulatory agencies.) Yes. But not aware of many Telcos that have a faster response time in their Tarrifs, than good local WISPs. * Subtle features like strain relief on all connectors, meeting the telecom industry requirements for rack mounting, built-in protection for power line surges and lightning. WISPs put in a valient effort, but fail or barely pass. Telcos pass and shine, throwing millions of dollars away in over engineering. So although they shine, its responsible for the bankruptcy of 25 of the largest 29 Telcos through year 2001. * Superb monitoring and remote control capabilities WISPs pass. However, where Telcos shine, is 100s of commercial product are available to collect and store and track the statistics to backup SLA guarantees. WISPs can offer and fullfil the same SLAs maybe even better, but can they prove it? * Offer continuous VERY-in-depth training programs at the factory so that carriers can get their personnel FULLY up to speed on a product. Again, this almost never free, and carriers don't expect it to be. Every WISPs product manufacturer offers this. The only reason all WISPs may not have it, is their decission not to pay for it, as they don't have a huge staff to justify it, when they know it already. * Offer continuous product improvement, bug fixes, recalls when appropriate, and does so proactively when an issue is identified, and does so in a way to minimize downtime such as offering proactive replacement units. Telcos pass. Most WISP networks do not. Open Source, p
Re: [WISPA] Error in Press Release
John, I have to say, somewhat of an embaressing situation. I sent out a few protests to my representatives as well, based on the press release. We definately need to be clear on the understanding of this proposed bill. If it is as good as the text posted most recently correctly the misunderstanding, it might be appropriate to go as far as WISPA making a Press release on its support of the bill, praising the responsible parties. So it is not unclear what we support, and since it is such a super improtant issue today. Could you post a copy of the bill when you get it, so we can all read it. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 12:42 AM Subject: [WISPA] Error in Press Release I read your press release titled: TIA Applauds Introduction of Spectrum-Related Legislation by Representatives Inslee, Blackburn, Baldwin, Gillmor and Boucher I read a line in the release below that is not true. It is this: The Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) praises the leadership of Representatives Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and his co- sponsors ... for their introduction of legislation intended to allow the use of broadcast television spectrum in the band between 608 and 614 MHz by unlicensed devices, including wireless broadband services. When I read that this bill was limited to allowing use "between" 608 and 614 MHz as outlined above I was outraged. This is a mere 6 MHz of spectrum. I took that information and decided to rally WISP operators against this bill because it was against the language proposed by the Senate Commerce Committee bills allowing for all television unused channels. Now we have several WISPs who have written their representatives OPPOSING this bill. I had someone finally send me the real language of the bill and found it actually says that the bill is asking for all unused television channel space with the "exception of" 608 to 614 MHz. This is a COMPLETELY different meaning than what is portrayed in your press release and has caused a great deal of misinformation about this bill. PLEASE correct this so others do not make the same mistake. With regrets, John Scrivner -- 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] PPPoE w/Radius Question
I am planning to move to PPPoE with Radius backend. I have it all working on the bench. In fact, with a couple of differnet scenarios, which leads to the questions. I am going to use Mikrotik at each POP, so will have 3 APs coming into the MT. Each AP on its own subnet. Do you have Radius issue the addresses or the PPPoE server? Why? (I like to make informed choices.) If Radius, how do you determine what address to issue? Especially if the user may be somewhat mobile. Actually in one case I have a customer that will be in one town for a week, another town for a week (different POP,) etc. Scott Reed Owner NewWays Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration www.nwwnet.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
Ok, assuming Real World Test win. How does your TCP test handle packet loss? Does it slow the test down to attempt to reduce packet loss until its gone? Thats what real world applications do, like FTP, and the real performance subscribers see, regardless of the Link's abilty to pass test traffic faster. I want to see the performance my customers experience. If your link has 2% packetloss, what impact will that have on customer's performance with various applications? Will your TCP tests show that. I'm not passing judgement, I'll let you make that judgement you wrote it. But my TCP tests (Iperf) do not get me that information. I've lost customers insisting that their link was operating perfectly based on TCP speed test, only to learn that the custoemr was right, and their performance was getting destroyed by packet loss. This is an important issue with Wireless, when packet loss is possible, due to interference and environmental condition changes. WRAP board were always in the 23 to 25 mbps range yet a UDP test would pull almost 35 mbps, Our testing never saw that. Typical numbers were always in the 1,800 to 2,000 KBytes/sec as reported by the FTP client. I don't contest that, based on a lab environemnt without packetloss. Did you repeat those tests, introducing interference/packet loss into the link? 2% packet loss with FTP, can bring your performance of a 25 mbps link down to 100 kbps. Does your test, replicate those results? I agree that TCP is a preferred test for a clean lab environment test, to test maximum obtainable speed. Butwho cares about that? What I want to know is what speed my link in the field is capable of doing, based on the conditions it is deployed in. I'm not in the business of delivering commodity Up-To Burstable Services. I am always amazed at how labels get applied. To call something a lower grade product Understand, I was not saying your product is lower grade than other, buts saying that your product is not being as good as it can be, if it had more types of testing tools. Its what, a days work, to add Iperf to OS image? >Results are what count, not how pretty you look or how good you sound. But how do you know what your results are? If tests don't test accurately? It is strange to have to lie to the customer to get a high grade product rating. Maybe we don't need that, and for the most part my users don't want it either. They don't want packet loss either. Most of them prefer to have the whole file delivered intact. This is where you are loosing me. I'm not aware of anyone that lies to give a higher grade offering. My comments are based on results I see in the field with live deployments, that cost me clients and save me clients. I don't sell product or profit from what product user's select. I am not judging your test tool, I have never performed test measuring the accuracy of your testing tool. I am simply asking you the real hard question, for you to evaluate whether your test tool, method considers all the factors that need to be tested. You tell me, but prove it, with an explanation of how your tool handles it. Lonnie, its no big deal to us, we got a solution. We got Iperf running at every hop cell router, and have XP versions of Iperf to Email to our subscribers when tests need to be performed. Not all WISPs are in that position. Its to your advantage, to add the tools that WISP may want, sothey can make their technical decissions that meet their standard what ever tyhat may be, apposed to being locked into the vendor's opinion. Lonnie, StarOS is a great product, I'm not trying to say otherwise, nor am I challenging the speed capabilties of the product. I'm jsut discussing test variables. I admit, I tend to use Mikrotik more for my APs, because of the Virtual AP feature. Why? Because it saves me $200 a month per radio on roof lease fees, because I now can have one AP for all my wifi needs, instead of multiple APs on the roof for various needs, and I only need one channels for all my needs, instead of multiple channels for various needs. (Wep compatibilty mode, WPA high security mode, HotSpot Free public access, VLAN protected provisioning mode). It will be great when you get Virtual AP added to the product. It gets hard for me to test performance between a StarOS client and a Mikrotik AP, without a standardized test tool embedded in the radio. I got Iperf on the cell servers. But I'd love to be able to test performance to the CPE, without calling the customer to assist, and see the results I'm getting on the spot. It puts me in a vulnerable possition SLA wise and response time wise. You can take the advise or leave it. Just my 2 cents. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 7:33 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system
Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
Tom, I am confused about your testing. If you are testing a link, and it has 2% packet loss, then the link is going to run 2%-4% slower due to the loss, therefore the results will reflect that loss. Ever run a speed test across a link with 50% loss? If it's set to a 2Mbps connection, you get about 1Mbps when testing. It's still a 1Mbps connection, even with packet loss. Even using Trango's Linktest, it shows the maximum speed of the link BASED ON THE LOSS across the link. Am I missing something? I don't understand what you are trying to say. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Ok, assuming Real World Test win. How does your TCP test handle packet loss? Does it slow the test down to attempt to reduce packet loss until its gone? Thats what real world applications do, like FTP, and the real performance subscribers see, regardless of the Link's abilty to pass test traffic faster. I want to see the performance my customers experience. If your link has 2% packetloss, what impact will that have on customer's performance with various applications? Will your TCP tests show that. I'm not passing judgement, I'll let you make that judgement you wrote it. But my TCP tests (Iperf) do not get me that information. I've lost customers insisting that their link was operating perfectly based on TCP speed test, only to learn that the custoemr was right, and their performance was getting destroyed by packet loss. This is an important issue with Wireless, when packet loss is possible, due to interference and environmental condition changes. WRAP board were always in the 23 to 25 mbps range yet a UDP test would pull almost 35 mbps, Our testing never saw that. Typical numbers were always in the 1,800 to 2,000 KBytes/sec as reported by the FTP client. I don't contest that, based on a lab environemnt without packetloss. Did you repeat those tests, introducing interference/packet loss into the link? 2% packet loss with FTP, can bring your performance of a 25 mbps link down to 100 kbps. Does your test, replicate those results? I agree that TCP is a preferred test for a clean lab environment test, to test maximum obtainable speed. Butwho cares about that? What I want to know is what speed my link in the field is capable of doing, based on the conditions it is deployed in. I'm not in the business of delivering commodity Up-To Burstable Services. I am always amazed at how labels get applied. To call something a lower grade product Understand, I was not saying your product is lower grade than other, buts saying that your product is not being as good as it can be, if it had more types of testing tools. Its what, a days work, to add Iperf to OS image? >Results are what count, not how pretty you look or how good you sound. But how do you know what your results are? If tests don't test accurately? It is strange to have to lie to the customer to get a high grade product rating. Maybe we don't need that, and for the most part my users don't want it either. They don't want packet loss either. Most of them prefer to have the whole file delivered intact. This is where you are loosing me. I'm not aware of anyone that lies to give a higher grade offering. My comments are based on results I see in the field with live deployments, that cost me clients and save me clients. I don't sell product or profit from what product user's select. I am not judging your test tool, I have never performed test measuring the accuracy of your testing tool. I am simply asking you the real hard question, for you to evaluate whether your test tool, method considers all the factors that need to be tested. You tell me, but prove it, with an explanation of how your tool handles it. Lonnie, its no big deal to us, we got a solution. We got Iperf running at every hop cell router, and have XP versions of Iperf to Email to our subscribers when tests need to be performed. Not all WISPs are in that position. Its to your advantage, to add the tools that WISP may want, sothey can make their technical decissions that meet their standard what ever tyhat may be, apposed to being locked into the vendor's opinion. Lonnie, StarOS is a great product, I'm not trying to say otherwise, nor am I challenging the speed capabilties of the product. I'm jsut discussing test variables. I admit, I tend to use Mikrotik more for my APs, because of the Virtual AP feature. Why? Because it saves me $200 a month per radio on roof lease fees, because I now can have one AP for all my wifi needs, instead of multiple APs on the roof for various needs, and I only need one channels for all my needs, instead of multiple channels for various needs. (Wep compatibilty mode, WPA high security mode, HotSpot Free public access, VLAN protected provisioning mode). It will be great when you get Virtual AP added to the product. It gets hard for me to test performance between a StarOS client and a Mikrotik AP,
Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061 personal correspondence to: mark at neofast dot net sales inquiries to: purchasing at neofast dot net Fast Internet, NO WIRES! - - Original Message - From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 8:51 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP > > With that said I still think Alvarion is a far better platform than > Canopy which is strictly my opinion and has no basis in fact. In the > past I have been put-off by a perceived arrogance I have seen by some > Alvarion representatives who have insisted previously that they had the > "only" viable solution for wireless broadband and seemed as though they > were claiming almost a "holier than thou" behavior toward anyone stating > another opinion than their own. I have also seen a terribly biased > negative attitude toward Alvarion by many WISPs who wanted to drive home > the "WISP=Cheap" mentality to the point of alienating Alvarion from our > entire market segment. Both Alvarion and most WISPs have lost a great > ally in each other and I suspect both sides have suffered from such > negativity. I am hoping to see this division closed between the typical > WISP operator and Alvarion. Until Alvarion makes a product that's viable for more than "niche" market WISP, the 'division' is simply going to continue to exist. They have certain products that WISP's will find useful and valuable, but they don't make mainstream WISP "last mile" equipment. I have been expecting to see them announce something, but so far, I've not seen anything. The ball's in thier court. North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061 personal correspondence to: mark at neofast dot net sales inquiries to: purchasing at neofast dot net Fast Internet, NO WIRES! - -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
I hope you enjoy yours as much as I have mine. :D From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:52 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP Chad, Based on your post, I just purchased a couple 533mhz boards with CM9 cards from Lonnie. :) Travis Microserv Chad Halsted wrote: Travis, I have a StarOS PTP link using the 533mhz WAR boards that get up to 33Mbps (TCP). That’s using CM9 atheros cards and 2’ PacWireless Dishes. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 8:28 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP Hi, Does anyone know actual TCP throughput with StarOS on their 533mhz boards in just a point to point config, using 20mhz of spectrum? Travis Microserv Paul Hendry wrote: All the details are on the Valemount web site http://www.staros.com/starvx/ Cheers, P. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] OnBehalf Of Richard GoodinSent: 11 April 2006 09:15To: wireless@wispa.orgSubject: RE: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP So... Who makes them?, how much? Hi Richard, This cloaking mechanism is the 5MHz and 10MHz channel sizes thatGeorge was referring to on the Star WAR boards. Works really well and evenseems to improve signal quality. Cheers, P. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] OnBehalf Of Richard GoodinSent: 11 April 2006 08:09To: wireless@wispa.orgSubject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISPGuys;These all sound great. I was reading just a couple months back about a WISP operator that had a severe problem. Just a few yards away, maybe 300 feet,another guy put up his tower. I think they were both on 2.4 GHZ, andsomeone suggested a different AP that would not even be detected byconventional systems. Something about nonstandard bandwidth, channelspacing or coding. I really feel that stealth is best here. These otherguys have been in business for a while and could cause trouble that I do not need. Lee Trango does make a good product. I still have 2 Sunstream AP's in use. They are like Timex watches. I'm using Star War boards. A little bit more than the trango s. The 2 card boards in a 5 gig rootenna let me use the 2nd card for an omni.Speeds are about 20+ megs or so and I cloak down to 5MHz and 10MHz channel sizes. One of the things I've been doing is slapping up repeaters all over theplace. Cheap as hell, about 400.00 or so. Lately I've ran lmr400 into some of my customers attics and installed anomni for their home wifi. We tend to service our customers right to the pc and it's a lot better router than a linksys. And I have happier customersand I'm happier. The 2 port and the 4 port both have dual ethernet as well. Pretty versatile product. Lonnie has come along way with the new warplatform. George Travis Johnson wrote: That's on quantity 30 $149 each. 5.8ghz, dual polarity, up to 3 miles (add $40 for a dish and it goes up to 13 miles) and delivers up to 10Mbps. Hard to beat! And with SmartPolling on the AP, you can get hundreds ofcustomers per sector. TravisMicroserv Rick Smith wrote: that's only quantity (large!) pricing isn't it ? Brian Rohrbacher wrote: If it's pretty absent of trees you might look at 5.8. Trango has thatcpe for $150. Not going to find any propriety gear cheaper. Richard Goodin wrote: I have been planning my WISP for about a year, and have yet to begindelivery of bandwidth to customers. My choice for service delivery was 802.11b, but with increased competition from other services nearby(about 5 miles away) I am wondering how to avoid problems. I have a50' tower, and it is ROHN 45g. My choice for antennas would be 4 90degree horizontal antennas. I have looked at bandwidth and shopped it to death. My best price is $400 from Lime Light. And I've built acouple of servers, acquired some switches and a router. The Router is a Cisco 1750. My questions: What CPE's and AP's would work best in this environment? I want tokeep interferance to a minimum, as well as control costs. Myenvironment includes lots of desert, and single story buildings. Lee --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/ --No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.
Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
I am missing something here. You say a TCP test runs full speed even in the face of packet loss. My experience does not bear this out. We see good results in our tests because we have links with little or no packet loss. You can be assured that throughput results drop in the face of packet loss. On the other hand you can get a much higher number with a UDP test. You understand that UDP is connectionless and does not rely on any sort of feedback (the periodic ACK) and just blindly pumps out packets, with no knowledge that they were ever received. iperf does talk back and forth to get an idea of how many packets make it through, but I could easily do a UDP test that would be at the full speed of the device I am sending it from, yet the other end could have a 100% blockage. A TCP test would immediately show that as 0 throughput. Anyway, this is digressing and getting personal, with shots at things that have zero to do with throughput. I now go back to lurk mode. Lonnie On 4/12/06, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ok, assuming Real World Test win. > > How does your TCP test handle packet loss? Does it slow the test down to > attempt to reduce packet loss until its gone? > Thats what real world applications do, like FTP, and the real performance > subscribers see, regardless of the Link's abilty to pass test traffic > faster. I want to see the performance my customers experience. > > If your link has 2% packetloss, what impact will that have on customer's > performance with various applications? Will your TCP tests show that. I'm > not passing judgement, I'll let you make that judgement you wrote it. But my > TCP tests (Iperf) do not get me that information. I've lost customers > insisting that their link was operating perfectly based on TCP speed test, > only to learn that the custoemr was right, and their performance was getting > destroyed by packet loss. This is an important issue with Wireless, when > packet loss is possible, due to interference and environmental condition > changes. > > >WRAP board were always in the 23 > >to 25 mbps range yet a UDP test would pull almost 35 mbps, > > Our testing never saw that. > > >Typical numbers were always in the 1,800 to 2,000 > >KBytes/sec as reported by the FTP client. > > I don't contest that, based on a lab environemnt without packetloss. > Did you repeat those tests, introducing interference/packet loss into the > link? > 2% packet loss with FTP, can bring your performance of a 25 mbps link down > to 100 kbps. > Does your test, replicate those results? > > I agree that TCP is a preferred test for a clean lab environment test, to > test maximum obtainable speed. > Butwho cares about that? What I want to know is what speed my link in the > field is capable of doing, based on the conditions it is deployed in. > > I'm not in the business of delivering commodity Up-To Burstable Services. > > >I am always amazed at how labels get applied. To call something a > >lower grade product > > Understand, I was not saying your product is lower grade than other, buts > saying that your product is not being as good as it can be, if it had more > types of testing tools. Its what, a days work, to add Iperf to OS image? > > >Results are what count, not > >how pretty you look or how good you sound. > > But how do you know what your results are? If tests don't test accurately? > > >It is strange > >to have to lie to the customer to get a high grade product rating. > >Maybe we don't need that, and for the most part my users don't want it > >either. They don't want packet loss either. Most of them prefer to > >have the whole file delivered intact. > > This is where you are loosing me. I'm not aware of anyone that lies to give > a higher grade offering. > My comments are based on results I see in the field with live deployments, > that cost me clients and save me clients. > I don't sell product or profit from what product user's select. > > I am not judging your test tool, I have never performed test measuring the > accuracy of your testing tool. I am simply asking you the real hard > question, for you to evaluate whether your test tool, method considers all > the factors that need to be tested. You tell me, but prove it, with an > explanation of how your tool handles it. > > Lonnie, its no big deal to us, we got a solution. We got Iperf running at > every hop cell router, and have XP versions of Iperf to Email to our > subscribers when tests need to be performed. Not all WISPs are in that > position. Its to your advantage, to add the tools that WISP may want, sothey > can make their technical decissions that meet their standard what ever tyhat > may be, apposed to being locked into the vendor's opinion. > > Lonnie, StarOS is a great product, I'm not trying to say otherwise, nor am I > challenging the speed capabilties of the product. I'm jsut discussing test > variables. > > I admit, I tend to use Mikrotik more for my APs, because of the Virtual AP > fe
Re: [WISPA] Tech Support Call Center Interest ?
Tom, The key to growth in business is hiring the right people. You can successfully run more than one business at the same time with capable employees - as well as processes, procedures and controls in place. (This is the key to franchising and the E-Myth, btw). Three problems: 1) Finding the right people 2) Having the processes in place 3) Letting go. Regards, Peter Tom DeReggi wrote: Rick, I'm sure you'd do well at anything you put your mind to, and I'm sure you are capable. However, the only advice I can give is... The key to success is finding the time to manage your company. The only real person that can be trusted to do that well are the people that have stake in that compnay. In my company's case its me personally. There is only so much time in the day. A business owner needs to decide what business they want to be in, and then focus on that venture, its all one mortal human can handle in a competitive environment and succeed. A CALL CENTER is a Full time business, just like your WISP. Helping your WISP clients, means staff is not available to help Call Center clients at the same time, and vice versa. These problems go away, when both companies scale large enough to have their own staff. However, getting a company to that stage, of self operating, is where most business owners fail, its not easy. You are no longer able to pick up the slack on your own. Franchises often make it. But getting two businesses to that stage simultaneously is near impossible. So should your perogative to be a Call Center, go for it, thats what the American Dream is all about, you have just a good a chance as any one else. There is also a big need for a call center, where the owner has real world WISP experience to add credability to supporting WISPs. But to do a good job at a call center, be realistic that your WISP surely would sacrify to allow it to happen. Which business do you want to be in? Personally, its a struggle I face regularly. (WISP, Network integrator, Hardware reseller, router manufacturer, Software developer). Opportunity is on every corner, but you can't do it all well, which do you take? A WISP clearly is NOT the least risky of all the options out there. However, I chose to be a WISP. I am banking on reoccuring revenue, one day without requiring reoccuring work to match, and realistic about the fact I hate to be caught behind a desk 24x7. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
Tom: My defense of Alvarion is pretty mild. They're definitely drifting down the innovation curve, not up. They're incredibly arrogant about not doing Wi-Fi despite the growing, impressive wins of Wi-Fi mesh vendors. They're not doing mesh, etc. They now are involved pretty deeply in the cellular and WiMAX industry, and that seems to have the vast majority of their corporate attention. But, in their (mild) defense, they're meeting the demands from their identified customers. (They don't seem to recognize what a trap this can be; apparently no one there has read "The Innovator's Dilemma".) There are certainly WISPs that come really close to a working definition of carrier-grade; I didn't mean to imply that they didn't exist. Great points, all - yours was one of the best pieces of reading I've seen on the WISP-related lists in a long time - it elevated the SNR. Thanks, Steve On Apr 12, 2006, at 17:28, Tom DeReggi wrote: Steve, excellent points. except... (also see inline) By your definition of Carrier grade, I could argue that many WISPs that just so happen not to use Alvarion, may very well better meet the definition of carrier grade than the carriers themselves. One of the negatives about the Alvarion product is that they have fallen victom to the IBM syndrom. They try and be the best and standardize on that, but then they lock them selves into a box with a limited product, and get left behind as far as features and product enhancements. IBM lost the war to Clones, because Clones were able to innovate faster and deliver more competitive products sooner. Alvarion, has tried to full fill the role of carrier grade, probably better than any other manufacturer, from the perspective of the support level carrier demand, and quality of the manufacturing of the product. But ultimately, where does Alvarion stand technology wise? Are they leading? Thats debatable. For example: Alvarion still 1. Single Freq range per radio unit. 2. Single polarity per radio unit. Limitations even the cheapest manufacturers have overcome. Many businesses operational savings are being had by WISPs chosing other third party wireless gear, allowing their operations to be more carrier class. (less stock, fewer components needed per truck, easier ordering, lower pricing, consistent OS interfaces, etc). I'm not just targeting Alvarion in my complaint. How many manufactturers have taken advantage os new smart antenna technologies or FCC rules for higher power or new freq ranges? For companies like Alvarion to stay on top as a leading Carrier grade company, they are going to have to break out of the IBM mold, and start innovating quicker. They are starting to do that, by comming out with Wimax and 4.9Ghz gear quicker than other competitors in the space. WISPs pass. (Alvarion not required to do so) WISPs fail. 1 minute outages every month or so must be tolerated. Even Alvarion is known for occasional auto system reboots when harsh interence is encountered. WISPs pass and shine. But not aware of any Carrier Telco that passes that requirement. Less likely with Alvarion, as more models need to be stocked, to ahve all conceivable replacement models. WISPs pass. Telco's generally Fail. Not many Companies keep $100,000 switches on hand for quick replacement. Yes. But not aware of many Telcos that have a faster response time in their Tarrifs, than good local WISPs. WISPs put in a valient effort, but fail or barely pass. Telcos pass and shine, throwing millions of dollars away in over engineering. So although they shine, its responsible for the bankruptcy of 25 of the largest 29 Telcos through year 2001. WISPs pass. However, where Telcos shine, is 100s of commercial product are available to collect and store and track the statistics to backup SLA guarantees. WISPs can offer and fullfil the same SLAs maybe even better, but can they prove it? Every WISPs product manufacturer offers this. The only reason all WISPs may not have it, is their decission not to pay for it, as they don't have a huge staff to justify it, when they know it already. Telcos pass. Most WISP networks do not. Open Source, provides more options for improvements and impowers the WISP, but no guarantees are there that it will continue to be given or at what success rate. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc Budget being only difference, and WISP qualify for carrier better than ILEC in some cases. --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
I've always looked at Alvarion as being carrier grade or as close as anything I've seen. And they are a fine company. George Steve Stroh wrote: Tom: My defense of Alvarion is pretty mild. They're definitely drifting down the innovation curve, not up. They're incredibly arrogant about not doing Wi-Fi despite the growing, impressive wins of Wi-Fi mesh vendors. They're not doing mesh, etc. They now are involved pretty deeply in the cellular and WiMAX industry, and that seems to have the vast majority of their corporate attention. But, in their (mild) defense, they're meeting the demands from their identified customers. (They don't seem to recognize what a trap this can be; apparently no one there has read "The Innovator's Dilemma".) There are certainly WISPs that come really close to a working definition of carrier-grade; I didn't mean to imply that they didn't exist. Great points, all - yours was one of the best pieces of reading I've seen on the WISP-related lists in a long time - it elevated the SNR. Thanks, Steve On Apr 12, 2006, at 17:28, Tom DeReggi wrote: Steve, excellent points. except... (also see inline) By your definition of Carrier grade, I could argue that many WISPs that just so happen not to use Alvarion, may very well better meet the definition of carrier grade than the carriers themselves. One of the negatives about the Alvarion product is that they have fallen victom to the IBM syndrom. They try and be the best and standardize on that, but then they lock them selves into a box with a limited product, and get left behind as far as features and product enhancements. IBM lost the war to Clones, because Clones were able to innovate faster and deliver more competitive products sooner. Alvarion, has tried to full fill the role of carrier grade, probably better than any other manufacturer, from the perspective of the support level carrier demand, and quality of the manufacturing of the product. But ultimately, where does Alvarion stand technology wise? Are they leading? Thats debatable. For example: Alvarion still 1. Single Freq range per radio unit. 2. Single polarity per radio unit. Limitations even the cheapest manufacturers have overcome. Many businesses operational savings are being had by WISPs chosing other third party wireless gear, allowing their operations to be more carrier class. (less stock, fewer components needed per truck, easier ordering, lower pricing, consistent OS interfaces, etc). I'm not just targeting Alvarion in my complaint. How many manufactturers have taken advantage os new smart antenna technologies or FCC rules for higher power or new freq ranges? For companies like Alvarion to stay on top as a leading Carrier grade company, they are going to have to break out of the IBM mold, and start innovating quicker. They are starting to do that, by comming out with Wimax and 4.9Ghz gear quicker than other competitors in the space. WISPs pass. (Alvarion not required to do so) WISPs fail. 1 minute outages every month or so must be tolerated. Even Alvarion is known for occasional auto system reboots when harsh interence is encountered. WISPs pass and shine. But not aware of any Carrier Telco that passes that requirement. Less likely with Alvarion, as more models need to be stocked, to ahve all conceivable replacement models. WISPs pass. Telco's generally Fail. Not many Companies keep $100,000 switches on hand for quick replacement. Yes. But not aware of many Telcos that have a faster response time in their Tarrifs, than good local WISPs. WISPs put in a valient effort, but fail or barely pass. Telcos pass and shine, throwing millions of dollars away in over engineering. So although they shine, its responsible for the bankruptcy of 25 of the largest 29 Telcos through year 2001. WISPs pass. However, where Telcos shine, is 100s of commercial product are available to collect and store and track the statistics to backup SLA guarantees. WISPs can offer and fullfil the same SLAs maybe even better, but can they prove it? Every WISPs product manufacturer offers this. The only reason all WISPs may not have it, is their decission not to pay for it, as they don't have a huge staff to justify it, when they know it already. Telcos pass. Most WISP networks do not. Open Source, provides more options for improvements and impowers the WISP, but no guarantees are there that it will continue to be given or at what success rate. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc Budget being only difference, and WISP qualify for carrier better than ILEC in some cases. --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tech Support Call Center Interest ?
point well made. My partner and I run 4 business simultaneously. We've put all the right people in the right places, and yes it took time to figure out who the right people were. That #3 on your list is the hardest part though. :) R Peter R. wrote: Tom, The key to growth in business is hiring the right people. You can successfully run more than one business at the same time with capable employees - as well as processes, procedures and controls in place. (This is the key to franchising and the E-Myth, btw). Three problems: 1) Finding the right people 2) Having the processes in place 3) Letting go. Regards, Peter Tom DeReggi wrote: Rick, I'm sure you'd do well at anything you put your mind to, and I'm sure you are capable. However, the only advice I can give is... The key to success is finding the time to manage your company. The only real person that can be trusted to do that well are the people that have stake in that compnay. In my company's case its me personally. There is only so much time in the day. A business owner needs to decide what business they want to be in, and then focus on that venture, its all one mortal human can handle in a competitive environment and succeed. A CALL CENTER is a Full time business, just like your WISP. Helping your WISP clients, means staff is not available to help Call Center clients at the same time, and vice versa. These problems go away, when both companies scale large enough to have their own staff. However, getting a company to that stage, of self operating, is where most business owners fail, its not easy. You are no longer able to pick up the slack on your own. Franchises often make it. But getting two businesses to that stage simultaneously is near impossible. So should your perogative to be a Call Center, go for it, thats what the American Dream is all about, you have just a good a chance as any one else. There is also a big need for a call center, where the owner has real world WISP experience to add credability to supporting WISPs. But to do a good job at a call center, be realistic that your WISP surely would sacrify to allow it to happen. Which business do you want to be in? Personally, its a struggle I face regularly. (WISP, Network integrator, Hardware reseller, router manufacturer, Software developer). Opportunity is on every corner, but you can't do it all well, which do you take? A WISP clearly is NOT the least risky of all the options out there. However, I chose to be a WISP. I am banking on reoccuring revenue, one day without requiring reoccuring work to match, and realistic about the fact I hate to be caught behind a desk 24x7. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
Travis, Am I missing something? Yes you are. The results you are explaining are appropriate for Layer2 testing and UDP testing. (2% packet loss = 2% reduction in speed) Its different with TCP and way different with FTP. Understanding its 1:30am, my mind is shot after a 20 hour work day, and my theory may be a little weak as explanation, however the gist of it is TCP is a transmission Control Protocol, meaning it controls the flow of data when and how fast to transmit. Or in other words, detects when their is packet loss, and slows it self down when it occurs. If a PC sends data faster than the Link capacity, packet loss occurs. All TCP links have some level of packet loss. For example, common Bandwdith management programs purposely drop packets (thus packet loss) in order to slow down transmission of data to a specific speed. What keep a PC from sending 10 mbps of data across a 1 mbps link? The Answer is TCP. It slows down transmission to meet the speed of the link, determining that based on when packet loss occurs. We are talking very very low amounts of packetloss, for TCP to tune itself for error free transmission. However, when there is a large amount of packet loss (such as 2 %), it slows transmission way down, as TCP tries to resend lost packets, and instead of it getting done at the radio, it has to go all the way back to the PC to determine when data was not delivered and when needed retransmission. This is because transmission is connection based with TCP, a connection between PC and end destination. So if a packet is lost on a hop, there may be many hops of packets to determine that re-transmission is needed, adding large amounts of latency, slowing transmission to a screaching halt. Now of course Trango solves this problem with its ARQ feature. When you get 2% packetloss, the link speed goes down 2% plus a small overhead amount, and the end applications, PCs, and other OSI layers dont even know the packetloss occured, as Trango transparently corrected it. Many have argued a method of ARQ is part of the 802.11 protocol for reliable delivery, which is true, but the performance hit in terms of throughput and latency is huge. Not to mention some faster versions of 802.11 (a/g) may even get rid of some of those features in order to deliver the faster speeds. But I forget the theory on all that, so I won't go into it in this post. The second issue is how FTP operates. Beyond TCP native transmission control, my understanding is that FTP's application layer, also has routines to help control reliable delivery of data transfer. (UNless I am mistaken, and its jsut TCP doing its stuff). FTP tries to self correct transmission errors. If FTP sees any packet loss, it slows transmission, and if there is still packet loss, it slow transmission more, etc. Because packetloss on a wireless link often is not a factor of speed of transmission, (for example random interference which occurs a percentage of the time (time based) regardless of speed of data transfer), it never manages to correct errors in transmission (packet loss) by slowing down, so it keeps on slowing down more attempting to correct, until it is transfering the speed of dial UP. Layer3 and UP protocols are smart. They don't jsut accept that 2% of packets get lost. They have to do something about it, to increase reliabilty. That can come at a HUGE performance penalty. The protocols accept that as the idea is that generally there should not be packetloss of significant amount, just mild loss from congestion. However, thats not the case in Wireless applications. 2% packet loss extending back to the end user PC for correction, can DESTROY performance. How much? Depends on what application and what the thresholds are in their code. How TCP works and its thresholds are published under an RFC somewhere. There ar some charts I saw that charted how much performance is lost based on what percentage of packet loss occured. A small amount of packet loss has a small effect on packet loss, but a large amount has an exponential effect, and harms transfer at a much greater rate than the amount of inital packet loss. So back to testing... If using a TCP speed tester, it takes into account any packetloss in the link, and handles slowdown however TCP is designed to do it. So the speed tester will immulate what real world data transfer would be for a raw TCP application the end user would use. Where the problem occurs in testing speed, is when the end user application (such as FTP) uses its own criteria on what methods it uses to correct poor data transmission. It does not follow jsut the default TCP protocol code. It injects decssions from its application level code. We have noticed specifically with FTP, the rate it slows down is tremendously more than just the amount of packet loss on the radio. Thats not a bad thing, people want their data delivered in its entirety error free,
Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
Travis, Its real easy to demonstrate my point with Atlas PtP gear. You can hard set at various modulations, and start lowering power, until linktest shows the percentage of packetloss you want to test. Linktest is great to measure loss to tell when you got it at the right level for testing. (not nearly as easy with 802.11 gear to test, as hard to measure what the packet loss actually is at a given moment for accurate comparisons). Of course disable ARQ for testing. Then do the FTP. Just add 3-5% packet loss, and watch how slow FTP gets. The more hops you have between the Host and CLient FTP machines, the worse the performance gets affected by the packet loss. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 9:46 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP Tom, I am confused about your testing. If you are testing a link, and it has 2% packet loss, then the link is going to run 2%-4% slower due to the loss, therefore the results will reflect that loss. Ever run a speed test across a link with 50% loss? If it's set to a 2Mbps connection, you get about 1Mbps when testing. It's still a 1Mbps connection, even with packet loss. Even using Trango's Linktest, it shows the maximum speed of the link BASED ON THE LOSS across the link. Am I missing something? I don't understand what you are trying to say. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Ok, assuming Real World Test win. How does your TCP test handle packet loss? Does it slow the test down to attempt to reduce packet loss until its gone? Thats what real world applications do, like FTP, and the real performance subscribers see, regardless of the Link's abilty to pass test traffic faster. I want to see the performance my customers experience. If your link has 2% packetloss, what impact will that have on customer's performance with various applications? Will your TCP tests show that. I'm not passing judgement, I'll let you make that judgement you wrote it. But my TCP tests (Iperf) do not get me that information. I've lost customers insisting that their link was operating perfectly based on TCP speed test, only to learn that the custoemr was right, and their performance was getting destroyed by packet loss. This is an important issue with Wireless, when packet loss is possible, due to interference and environmental condition changes. WRAP board were always in the 23 to 25 mbps range yet a UDP test would pull almost 35 mbps, Our testing never saw that. Typical numbers were always in the 1,800 to 2,000 KBytes/sec as reported by the FTP client. I don't contest that, based on a lab environemnt without packetloss. Did you repeat those tests, introducing interference/packet loss into the link? 2% packet loss with FTP, can bring your performance of a 25 mbps link down to 100 kbps. Does your test, replicate those results? I agree that TCP is a preferred test for a clean lab environment test, to test maximum obtainable speed. Butwho cares about that? What I want to know is what speed my link in the field is capable of doing, based on the conditions it is deployed in. I'm not in the business of delivering commodity Up-To Burstable Services. I am always amazed at how labels get applied. To call something a lower grade product Understand, I was not saying your product is lower grade than other, buts saying that your product is not being as good as it can be, if it had more types of testing tools. Its what, a days work, to add Iperf to OS image? >Results are what count, not how pretty you look or how good you sound. But how do you know what your results are? If tests don't test accurately? It is strange to have to lie to the customer to get a high grade product rating. Maybe we don't need that, and for the most part my users don't want it either. They don't want packet loss either. Most of them prefer to have the whole file delivered intact. This is where you are loosing me. I'm not aware of anyone that lies to give a higher grade offering. My comments are based on results I see in the field with live deployments, that cost me clients and save me clients. I don't sell product or profit from what product user's select. I am not judging your test tool, I have never performed test measuring the accuracy of your testing tool. I am simply asking you the real hard question, for you to evaluate whether your test tool, method considers all the factors that need to be tested. You tell me, but prove it, with an explanation of how your tool handles it. Lonnie, its no big deal to us, we got a solution. We got Iperf running at every hop cell router, and have XP versions of Iperf to Email to our subscribers when tests need to be performed. Not all WISPs are in that position. Its to your advantage, to add the tools that WISP may wan
Re: [WISPA] Tech Support Call Center Interest ?
Peter, Fully agree. But much easier said than done. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Peter R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 12:38 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tech Support Call Center Interest ? Tom, The key to growth in business is hiring the right people. You can successfully run more than one business at the same time with capable employees - as well as processes, procedures and controls in place. (This is the key to franchising and the E-Myth, btw). Three problems: 1) Finding the right people 2) Having the processes in place 3) Letting go. Regards, Peter Tom DeReggi wrote: Rick, I'm sure you'd do well at anything you put your mind to, and I'm sure you are capable. However, the only advice I can give is... The key to success is finding the time to manage your company. The only real person that can be trusted to do that well are the people that have stake in that compnay. In my company's case its me personally. There is only so much time in the day. A business owner needs to decide what business they want to be in, and then focus on that venture, its all one mortal human can handle in a competitive environment and succeed. A CALL CENTER is a Full time business, just like your WISP. Helping your WISP clients, means staff is not available to help Call Center clients at the same time, and vice versa. These problems go away, when both companies scale large enough to have their own staff. However, getting a company to that stage, of self operating, is where most business owners fail, its not easy. You are no longer able to pick up the slack on your own. Franchises often make it. But getting two businesses to that stage simultaneously is near impossible. So should your perogative to be a Call Center, go for it, thats what the American Dream is all about, you have just a good a chance as any one else. There is also a big need for a call center, where the owner has real world WISP experience to add credability to supporting WISPs. But to do a good job at a call center, be realistic that your WISP surely would sacrify to allow it to happen. Which business do you want to be in? Personally, its a struggle I face regularly. (WISP, Network integrator, Hardware reseller, router manufacturer, Software developer). Opportunity is on every corner, but you can't do it all well, which do you take? A WISP clearly is NOT the least risky of all the options out there. However, I chose to be a WISP. I am banking on reoccuring revenue, one day without requiring reoccuring work to match, and realistic about the fact I hate to be caught behind a desk 24x7. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
agreed, VL is far from carrier grade On Apr 12, 2006, at 9:16 AM, Charles Wu wrote: Motorola designed Canopy specifically for the WISP market, not the carrier market. Alvarion designed VL specifically for the carrier market, not the WISP market. Ah, the "mis-perceptions" of the "rugged" metal enclosure =) Steve, can you please explain why carriers would prefer a CSMA/CA over a scheduled (WiMAX-like) MAC? Thanks -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:wireless- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Stroh Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 11:05 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP Thanks, Steve On Apr 11, 2006, at 18:55, Dylan Oliver wrote: How is any product qualified as 'Carrier-Grade'? What is it about Alvarion VL that makes the cut vs. Canopy? Lord knows Motorola produces far more 'Carrier-Grade' equipment than Alvarion ever will - so where did they go wrong with Canopy? Also, I've heard lately several complaints that Waverider has trouble sustaining even 1 Mbps throughput ... what is your experience, John? Best, -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC-- --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
Steve, What defines something as carrier grade should also be: 1. Scalablity 2. True QOS ( QOS performance in the upstream and downstream ) On Apr 12, 2006, at 9:38 AM, Steve Stroh wrote: John: Here's my working definition of "carrier grade": Designed for use by carriers Suitable for use by carriers Sufficiently reliable for use by carriers There is MUCH that goes into a product designed for use by carriers. It's expensive and a tough market, so a lot of vendors don't try. Here are just a few features that are "carrier grade requirements" from my perspective: * Designed for use in all conceivable weather elements * Designed for long operational use with minimal attention (in the WISP market, one measure is that it doesn't reboot itself, or require regular reboots) * Designed for easy and fast repair * The vendor stocks ample replacement units deployed geographically for fast supply. * Support expertise by the vendor is readily available (excellent, easy-to-access tech support). Note that such support is almost never free, and carriers don't expect it to be. When they need help, they need it NOW and need to get their systems back online fast. (Carriers often have mandated time-to-repair maximums by regulatory agencies.) * Subtle features like strain relief on all connectors, meeting the telecom industry requirements for rack mounting, built-in protection for power line surges and lightning. * Superb monitoring and remote control capabilities * Offer continuous VERY-in-depth training programs at the factory so that carriers can get their personnel FULLY up to speed on a product. Again, this almost never free, and carriers don't expect it to be. * Offer continuous product improvement, bug fixes, recalls when appropriate, and does so proactively when an issue is identified, and does so in a way to minimize downtime such as offering proactive replacement units. Etc. Regarding "Alvarion versus WISPs"... it's pretty simple. By offering "more like carrier-grade" products, Alvarion saw FAR more market demand by carriers, public safety, enterprise than they saw in the WISP market. They are willing to sell to WISPs, but few WISPs are willing to take the time to truly understand Alvarion's value proposition which involves FAR more than mere price of the product. You've finally come around to this view John, and you'll discover that you have a lot of company in that view - which isn't (widely) represented on this list or necessarily within WISPA. That's because operators who have spent the money for quality gear like Alvarion's generally don't have NEARLY as many issues with such gear that require "group support"... and such operators don't wish to associate their businesses with the "we'll just hack up a Linksys AP and have cheap gear" attitude that a lot of people in the telecom industry equate with WISPs. Is Alvarion arrogant? Yes, at times, and certain individuals. But I think that's mostly a lot of pride and recognition that they were one of the pioneering companies in making it possible to offer carrier-grade services in license-exempt spectrum - something that the telecom industry KNEW could NOT be done. It's also the case that Alvarion offers the broadest product line in Broadband Wireless Internet Access - licensed and license-exempt, fixed and mobile, high-capacity and low-capacity, etc. Alvarion has very capable competitors in various segments, but I can't think of any company that competes head-to-head with Alvarion in all segments, even Airspan. Thanks, Steve On Apr 11, 2006, at 20:51, John Scrivner wrote: I decided to do some reading on the term "carrier-grade" and have found the following to be what is considered a definition in relation to our industry. One random source on the web refers to this as, "A term that implies a system that is designed to have increased availability and timeliness to meet the requirements of a modern communications network element." I saw this quantified on one site as being, a network device which has a sustained uptime of over 99.999%. This was as close to a quantifiable definition as I have found though it gives no length of time or other parameters to use for calculation of this percentage. According to Hughes Software Systems in regard to "Carrier-grade" they state that equipment can only be considered "Carrier-grade" after several years of real field use shows that it is highly available and reliable. In the end it is a very subjective term and one I will not use in the future unless I can quantify the classification. Basically there is no firm definition but I have heard of Alvarion referred to as "Carrier-grade" by others and mistakingly assumed it was a clearly defined characteristic. My apologies for this error in wording. With that said I still think Alvarion is a far better platform than Canopy which is strictly my
