[WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
$173K per mile build out cost? Somebody just bought a new boat.. c -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
I'll go ahead and predict that San Francisco will be a disaster. -Matt Jack Unger wrote: Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni problems that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be done correctly and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to play a positive role in proper network design and operation however most muni networks are incorrectly designed by people with limited wireless experience (yes, that even includes some mesh network vendors) which will lead to network failure, waste of taxpayer money, and possible loss of jobs on the part of the city IT folks (not to mention the elected officials) who backed the networks without first learning about how wireless technology really works. jack George wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
I am doubting that wisps can actually accomadate the muni in most situations, unless they are closely involved with the design of the network, Talking spectrum use here. As for going along with free muni wifi, How is a wisp going to operate if a muni is offering for free or at cut rate pricing? And how are they going to expand if the spectrum is used up all over the place with unlicensed omni's on every corner. George Jack Unger wrote: Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni problems that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be done correctly and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to play a positive role in proper network design and operation however most muni networks are incorrectly designed by people with limited wireless experience (yes, that even includes some mesh network vendors) which will lead to network failure, waste of taxpayer money, and possible loss of jobs on the part of the city IT folks (not to mention the elected officials) who backed the networks without first learning about how wireless technology really works. jack George wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
I don't know what equipment they are using, but Cisco AP1500's (mesh) are abnout $3700 each and Cisco recommends 18-20 per square mile. Thats $74,000 for the boxes plus antennas, mounts, POE and install. John -Original Message- From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:26 AM To: ''WISPA General List'' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes $173K per mile build out cost? Somebody just bought a new boat.. c -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006 -- 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/
RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Jack, I hate to say it but didn't we say I told you so There is just not enough spectrum to design networks like this to work with anything but dedicated CPE devices with outdoor antennas. Simply flooding an area with more signal to let laptops inside a house work will not solve the problem. It just creates more noise on already maxed out spectrum. I really wish the vendors and project stalwarts would admit this is a problem with these networks and not gloss it over. Self interference and outside interference are always going to be huge problems in these muni-networks. Everyone trying to build on the fact that off the shelf consumer devices can access this network will be the downfall. Wi-fi was never designed for a massive outdoor deployment such as this and when you try to make up for the fact that you do not have control over the CPE when it comes to proper RF planning you are doomed to failure. Just my 2 cents. Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com http://www.wirelessmapping.com -Original Message- From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:29 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni problems that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be done correctly and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to play a positive role in proper network design and operation however most muni networks are incorrectly designed by people with limited wireless experience (yes, that even includes some mesh network vendors) which will lead to network failure, waste of taxpayer money, and possible loss of jobs on the part of the city IT folks (not to mention the elected officials) who backed the networks without first learning about how wireless technology really works. jack George wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Our next WISP Workshops are April 12-13 and April 26-27 Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.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] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Same thing is happening here in New Orleans. I did talk to the city before it was designed but when I told them that it would be impossible for every houshold to pop open a laptop in their desired room the door was slammed shut. They did not want to hear this. I built a small mesh out downtown just for kicks a couple of years ago. Took my time and designed it the best it could be. These guys that do not know the technology get this vision to do whats impossible. Superior Wireless New Orleans,La. www.superior1.com - Original Message - From: Brian Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:10 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes Jack, I hate to say it but didn't we say I told you so There is just not enough spectrum to design networks like this to work with anything but dedicated CPE devices with outdoor antennas. Simply flooding an area with more signal to let laptops inside a house work will not solve the problem. It just creates more noise on already maxed out spectrum. I really wish the vendors and project stalwarts would admit this is a problem with these networks and not gloss it over. Self interference and outside interference are always going to be huge problems in these muni-networks. Everyone trying to build on the fact that off the shelf consumer devices can access this network will be the downfall. Wi-fi was never designed for a massive outdoor deployment such as this and when you try to make up for the fact that you do not have control over the CPE when it comes to proper RF planning you are doomed to failure. Just my 2 cents. Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com http://www.wirelessmapping.com -Original Message- From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:29 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni problems that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be done correctly and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to play a positive role in proper network design and operation however most muni networks are incorrectly designed by people with limited wireless experience (yes, that even includes some mesh network vendors) which will lead to network failure, waste of taxpayer money, and possible loss of jobs on the part of the city IT folks (not to mention the elected officials) who backed the networks without first learning about how wireless technology really works. jack George wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Our next WISP Workshops are April 12-13 and April 26-27 Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.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] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
inline... -Original Message- From: George [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:40 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes I am doubting that wisps can actually accomadate the muni in most situations, unless they are closely involved with the design of the network, Talking spectrum use here. First off, the WISPs have to have the guts to talk to the city. Many simply refuse to do so, and are probably going to get the Muni WiFi shoved down their throats. Second, the cities are mostly going to use 2.4 GHz for access and 5.7-5.8 GHz for backhauls. WISP's will need to use 5.25-5.25 GHz and 900 MHz. As for going along with free muni wifi, How is a wisp going to operate if a muni is offering for free or at cut rate pricing? In a word, service. The city will only be offering WiFi access-period. They won't be going out to peoples houses and doing installs, fixing virii, doing firewalls, etc. And how are they going to expand if the spectrum is used up all over the place with unlicensed omni's on every corner. George Jack Unger wrote: Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni problems that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be done correctly and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to play a positive role in proper network design and operation however most muni networks are incorrectly designed by people with limited wireless experience (yes, that even includes some mesh network vendors) which will lead to network failure, waste of taxpayer money, and possible loss of jobs on the part of the city IT folks (not to mention the elected officials) who backed the networks without first learning about how wireless technology really works. jack George wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- 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] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
roflol The city is selling signal boosters (I read that as amps) to anyone that wants them for $170? Oh man, this deployment is gonna come CRASHING down. Hard. It's really too bad these people are too ignorant, stubborn or just plain stupid to call any of us in to help. sigh Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:07 AM Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- 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] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
John J. Thomas wrote: inline... First off, the WISPs have to have the guts to talk to the city. Many simply refuse to do so, and are probably going to get the Muni WiFi shoved down their throats. I don't want to turn this into a battle of ideals. But how many local wisps have been chosen to date? I bet Joe laura in NO got passed over without much consideration to him. Joe is on this list, let him chime in here. Second, the cities are mostly going to use 2.4 GHz for access and 5.7-5.8 GHz for backhauls. WISP's will need to use 5.25-5.25 GHz and 900 MHz. Almost every wisp today is using 2.4 to reach the customer and 5 gig for infrastructure and high end customers. Are you saying that wisps have to move off the existing spectrum and replace their equipment? In a word, service. The city will only be offering WiFi access-period. They won't be going out to peoples houses and doing installs, fixing virii, doing firewalls, etc. Here is a scenario, if a potential customer who is on the fence while deciding to go to broadband was to hear that a new muni free wifi system is going to come on line or he can buy now with his local wisp, which choice is the average consumer going to make? The support scenario happens long after the fact. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
That one's easy. They have a $400,000 per year budget. The city should contract with the WISP for that. Sheesh, 15 square miles. I could do that with my eyes closed! Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:40 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes I am doubting that wisps can actually accomadate the muni in most situations, unless they are closely involved with the design of the network, Talking spectrum use here. As for going along with free muni wifi, How is a wisp going to operate if a muni is offering for free or at cut rate pricing? And how are they going to expand if the spectrum is used up all over the place with unlicensed omni's on every corner. George Jack Unger wrote: Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni problems that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be done correctly and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to play a positive role in proper network design and operation however most muni networks are incorrectly designed by people with limited wireless experience (yes, that even includes some mesh network vendors) which will lead to network failure, waste of taxpayer money, and possible loss of jobs on the part of the city IT folks (not to mention the elected officials) who backed the networks without first learning about how wireless technology really works. jack George wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- 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] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
No, they are selling higher powered CPE devices that act as a bridge connecting to the muni network and then act as a local AP to help lower powered laptops effectively use the service. -Matt Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: roflol The city is selling signal boosters (I read that as amps) to anyone that wants them for $170? Oh man, this deployment is gonna come CRASHING down. Hard. It's really too bad these people are too ignorant, stubborn or just plain stupid to call any of us in to help. sigh Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:07 AM Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- 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] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
You guys are all missing the point. If they contract with the local WISP, they don't get to create new jobs for the muni... instead, they are just helping a local business grow with local tax money. Welcome to politics in the wireless arena. :( Travis Microserv Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: That one's easy. They have a $400,000 per year budget. The city should contract with the WISP for that. Sheesh, 15 square miles. I could do that with my eyes closed! Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:40 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes I am doubting that wisps can actually accomadate the muni in most situations, unless they are closely involved with the design of the network, Talking spectrum use here. As for going along with free muni wifi, How is a wisp going to operate if a muni is offering for free or at cut rate pricing? And how are they going to expand if the spectrum is used up all over the place with unlicensed omni's on every corner. George Jack Unger wrote: Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni problems that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be done correctly and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to play a positive role in proper network design and operation however most muni networks are incorrectly designed by people with limited wireless experience (yes, that even includes some mesh network vendors) which will lead to network failure, waste of taxpayer money, and possible loss of jobs on the part of the city IT folks (not to mention the elected officials) who backed the networks without first learning about how wireless technology really works. jack George wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- 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] Dual Channel Bonded Wireless Internet System - Closer?
Anybody know how to bond 2 wireless internet channels ... ie.. verizon + cingular hsdpa? we're working on getting 240kbps... instead of 120kbps per card / network for a govt client. - bob -- Robert Q Kim, Wireless Internet Advisor http://wireless-internet-coverage.blogspot.com http://evdo-coverage.com 2611 S. Pacific Coast Highway 101 Suite 203 Cardiff by the Sea, CA 92007 206 984 0880 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Why not just buy the cards, boards, antennas and make a few yourself? c -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:46 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes Then there are companies like airmatrix that charge less than 1k per node. The key with mesh is density, and many mesh startup's fail because they Underbuild their networks. - Jeff On 4/24/06 7:53 AM, John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know what equipment they are using, but Cisco AP1500's (mesh) are abnout $3700 each and Cisco recommends 18-20 per square mile. Thats $74,000 for the boxes plus antennas, mounts, POE and install. John -Original Message- From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:26 AM To: ''WISPA General List'' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes $173K per mile build out cost? Somebody just bought a new boat.. c -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006 -- 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 Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
In recent post I explained that here in Atlanta you can only use a single 2.4 channel because of the noise floor. How is a multi-band mesh node going to work? Maybe there is a reason the big muni projects keep selecting Tropos. -Matt Jack Unger wrote: Dawn, Thanks for posting the St. Cloud PepLink and HP info. Using standard CPE (PePLink)is very good but using Tropos nodes is very, very bad. Very bad because they only have one single 2.4 GHz radio so after 2 or 3 hops, all the throughput capability is gone not to mention that the interference level from having all the access and backhaul packets colliding on 2.4 GHz (along with any WISP and other 2.4 GHz network packets) will slow all the networks (muni and WISP) down further. I hate to finger anyone but Tropos' stubborn refusal or inability (anyone at Tropos listening???) to produce a 2-band mesh node is going to doom them to failure along with any big city that deploys their nodes without an extremely efficient point-to-multipoint backbone design on 5 GHz. jack Dawn DiPietro wrote: http://www.peplink.com/060306.php Date: March 7, 2006* PePLink announces as the official Citywide Wireless CPE provider for City of St. Cloud in Florida * *Hong Kong, Mar 7, 2006 - *PePLink, a leader in citywide WiFi wireless broadband devices today announced the City of St. Cloud, FL, a suburb of Orlando, has chosen PePLink to be the official wireless CPE provider for the Cyber Spot, the City's 100% free citywide high-speed wireless Internet service. With a reliable, secure, ease of use wireless CPE - PePLink Surf, every citizen or business in the city of St. Cloud can connect to the citywide wireless network at a high speed. The CPE greatly enhances the throughput and reliability of both up and down link compared with a wireless-enabled computer desktop or notebook computer. The simple true plug and play nature of the PePLink Surf helps the citizens in St. Cloud to bring the wireless signal indoors with ease. At the same time, the PePLink Surf units can be remotely managed, monitored and provisioned by PePLink's carrier-grade management and reporting solution, PCMS (or PePLink Centralized Management System). This can ensure a scalable and rapid rollout of the wireless systems within a short period of time. This eliminates an onsite installation charge. Being chosen by City of St. Cloud has further endorsed our capability to offer reliable wireless solutions to municipal wireless networks built with mesh network technology, said Alex Chan, Managing Director of PePLink. PePLink Surf together with PCMS is the complete solution specifically designed for today's citywide wireless networks. PePLink Surf series consists of Surf 200BG and Surf 400BG. For more information on PePLink Surf series, please visit http://www.peplink.com http://www.peplink.com/. Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: roflol The city is selling signal boosters (I read that as amps) to anyone that wants them for $170? Oh man, this deployment is gonna come CRASHING down. Hard. It's really too bad these people are too ignorant, stubborn or just plain stupid to call any of us in to help. sigh Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:07 AM Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- 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] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
muniwireless efforts. The munis are our most powerful allies right now, and we should be working WITH them, not against them. Matt Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] George wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- 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] UL WiMAX update
Rich, with all due respect, your idea has a REALLY big flaw in it. Once government sets a standard, it's going to be a very long time before anything new comes along. Pure Darwinism is bad in that it requires too much capital investment. No Darwinism (government standards, really that's what the old Ma Bell system in essence was) is even worse. The USA isn't quickly adapting broadband for several reasons. One is that the consumer just doesn't value it enough. If broadband was available at $75 per connection instead of $30 there would be much more of it out there. But people aren't willing (in large enough numbers) to pay more for broadband than for dialup or no internet at all. In other countries they've typically had comparatively substandard networks. They are now building to catch up and naturally that building is with the latest gear. Here we have cheap access to phones, cell phones, TV, etc. That's not always the case elsewhere. It's funny. I thought that getting the local businesses on broadband would help me sell more of it. People would use it at work and want it at home too right? Wrong. They just do all of their stuff at work and sometimes cancel even the dialup! Market forces are best left alone. But steps do need to be taken to make sure that the playing field is level and that practical considerations (like roi) are not totally ignored. laters, Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Rich Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 5:08 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update It's quite unfortunate IMO but I've concluded that this is a typically American problem. In America the courts broke up the Bell system thinking that it'd be better for the average American to have local phone companies competing with each other. Only here in America does the FCC license any technology the carriers wishes to deploy, resulting in them competing with each other (whatever technology cellphone you carry, there are more towers of different technology that any given cellphone can't access compared to those it). Europe learned almost 2 decades ago that to compete with the United States they needed to mandate compatible technologies that would insure interoperable services to users (things like GSM). For the benefit of all, I wish the FCC would open any/all new bands (3.6, 5.4 thru 5.7, etc) mandating a compatible technical solution, or at minimum one that required all equipment to play nice. Nobody wants to through away the investment that they have made already, and as that investment increases, it gets harder. Right. Too much of a hardship to change rules in bands once deployed. But all new bands should require compatability rules. I just don't see our FCC seeing things this way. There are too many that believe a free-for-all in the market serves the public best. I don't agree. Rich - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 6:05 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update Steve, In theory, I fully agree with your view. The problem is that theory does not always play out in the real world. 5 years later, I still have 10 mbps gear, and very few places that can risk using faster gear. (although we are finding ways, such as getting higher power with PtP to use faster gear reliably, of course we are also wasting spectrum because channels used up with only some of the bandwdith being used, not being able to average its use over PtMP.) The problem is that the longer the FCC waits to impose better rules, the harder it gets for the industry to accept the rules. Nobody wants to through away the investment that they have made already, and as that investment increases, it gets harder. The problem with the rules as they are now, true Darwinism, is that it forces WISPs to be in competition with WISPs, instead of WISPs bandwdith togeather to be in competitions with other industry segments like Telcos and Cable companies. And the inner struggle forces WISPS to be less competitive as an industry in the end. This can not be a good thing for an industry, allthough it may be most ethical for evolutionists. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Steve Stroh [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 1:04 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update Patrick: I disagree that the market is (directly) rewarding survival of the nastiest - it's rewarding systems that are designed to survive
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Matt, Tropos has done a very good job when it comes to powering their node from a wide variety of sources. Unfortunately their fatal flaw is to insistence on clinging to their single-radio design. This means their nodes will always be throughput-limited, latency-limited, self-interference limited, and 2.4 GHz spectrum polluters. Any power and rf-savvy WISP could design an equally power-versatile mesh node but make it multi-band. jack Matt Liotta wrote: A Tropos unit has a 1W transmitter, is capable of being powered via PoE or via AC delivered through standard outlets as well as a variety of photo-cell taps including high-voltage ones. When powered with AC, it is capable of providing PoE power out of its Ethernet ports supporting equipment from Motorola and Trango even though neither using standard PoE. It mounts like a dream, includes level bubbles for perfect orientation, and units can be slid into and out of place with only a single screw enabling nodes to be changed in less than 5 minutes. Quite simply, a Tropos unit is beautifully engineered. Where can I find the parts to make the same thing in a single package? -Matt chris cooper wrote: Why not just buy the cards, boards, antennas and make a few yourself? c -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:46 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes Then there are companies like airmatrix that charge less than 1k per node. The key with mesh is density, and many mesh startup's fail because they Underbuild their networks. - Jeff On 4/24/06 7:53 AM, John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know what equipment they are using, but Cisco AP1500's (mesh) are abnout $3700 each and Cisco recommends 18-20 per square mile. Thats $74,000 for the boxes plus antennas, mounts, POE and install. John -Original Message- From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:26 AM To: ''WISPA General List'' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes $173K per mile build out cost? Somebody just bought a new boat.. c -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006 -- 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/ -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Our next WISP Workshops are April 12-13 and April 26-27 Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.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] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
- Original Message - From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:07 AM Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ --- --- -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Our next WISP Workshops are April 12-13 and April 26-27 Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.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] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Matt, A multi-band mesh node does the backhaul on 5 GHz (sometimes with more than one 5 GHz radio). This reduces (but certainly doesn't eliminate) the 2.4 GHz self-interference and other-network-interference level. The reason the big muni projects often select Tropos is that Tropos has the best marketing effort out there and has been in the game longer than most other mesh equipment vendors. I predict it won't take too may big Tropos-based muni networks to fail before future big-city muni administrators will see the light and chose other, more throughput-capable mesh vendors. jack Matt Liotta wrote: In recent post I explained that here in Atlanta you can only use a single 2.4 channel because of the noise floor. How is a multi-band mesh node going to work? Maybe there is a reason the big muni projects keep selecting Tropos. -Matt Jack Unger wrote: Dawn, Thanks for posting the St. Cloud PepLink and HP info. Using standard CPE (PePLink)is very good but using Tropos nodes is very, very bad. Very bad because they only have one single 2.4 GHz radio so after 2 or 3 hops, all the throughput capability is gone not to mention that the interference level from having all the access and backhaul packets colliding on 2.4 GHz (along with any WISP and other 2.4 GHz network packets) will slow all the networks (muni and WISP) down further. I hate to finger anyone but Tropos' stubborn refusal or inability (anyone at Tropos listening???) to produce a 2-band mesh node is going to doom them to failure along with any big city that deploys their nodes without an extremely efficient point-to-multipoint backbone design on 5 GHz. jack Dawn DiPietro wrote: http://www.peplink.com/060306.php Date: March 7, 2006* PePLink announces as the official Citywide Wireless CPE provider for City of St. Cloud in Florida * *Hong Kong, Mar 7, 2006 - *PePLink, a leader in citywide WiFi wireless broadband devices today announced the City of St. Cloud, FL, a suburb of Orlando, has chosen PePLink to be the official wireless CPE provider for the Cyber Spot, the City's 100% free citywide high-speed wireless Internet service. With a reliable, secure, ease of use wireless CPE - PePLink Surf, every citizen or business in the city of St. Cloud can connect to the citywide wireless network at a high speed. The CPE greatly enhances the throughput and reliability of both up and down link compared with a wireless-enabled computer desktop or notebook computer. The simple true plug and play nature of the PePLink Surf helps the citizens in St. Cloud to bring the wireless signal indoors with ease. At the same time, the PePLink Surf units can be remotely managed, monitored and provisioned by PePLink's carrier-grade management and reporting solution, PCMS (or PePLink Centralized Management System). This can ensure a scalable and rapid rollout of the wireless systems within a short period of time. This eliminates an onsite installation charge. Being chosen by City of St. Cloud has further endorsed our capability to offer reliable wireless solutions to municipal wireless networks built with mesh network technology, said Alex Chan, Managing Director of PePLink. PePLink Surf together with PCMS is the complete solution specifically designed for today's citywide wireless networks. PePLink Surf series consists of Surf 200BG and Surf 400BG. For more information on PePLink Surf series, please visit http://www.peplink.com http://www.peplink.com/. Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: roflol The city is selling signal boosters (I read that as amps) to anyone that wants them for $170? Oh man, this deployment is gonna come CRASHING down. Hard. It's really too bad these people are too ignorant, stubborn or just plain stupid to call any of us in to help. sigh Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:07 AM Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ --- --- -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Our next WISP Workshops are April 12-13 and April 26-27 Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Jack Unger wrote: A multi-band mesh node does the backhaul on 5 GHz (sometimes with more than one 5 GHz radio). This reduces (but certainly doesn't eliminate) the 2.4 GHz self-interference and other-network-interference level. You can't use 5 Ghz to go through trees here in Atlanta, so that won't help you. Multi-band mesh nodes simple don't work here. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
-2181 wrote: roflol The city is selling signal boosters (I read that as amps) to anyone that wants them for $170? Oh man, this deployment is gonna come CRASHING down. Hard. It's really too bad these people are too ignorant, stubborn or just plain stupid to call any of us in to help. sigh Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:07 AM Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ --- --- -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Our next WISP Workshops are April 12-13 and April 26-27 Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.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] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
these people are too ignorant, stubborn or just plain stupid to call any of us in to help. sigh Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:07 AM Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ --- --- -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Our next WISP Workshops are April 12-13 and April 26-27 Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.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] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Then the 5 GHz backhaul network must have antennas that are raised above the trees. Another option is to backhaul with city-owned fiber. Backhauling on 900 MHz is a possible third option. All it takes is rf knowledge, creativity, and cooperation. jack Matt Liotta wrote: Jack Unger wrote: A multi-band mesh node does the backhaul on 5 GHz (sometimes with more than one 5 GHz radio). This reduces (but certainly doesn't eliminate) the 2.4 GHz self-interference and other-network-interference level. You can't use 5 Ghz to go through trees here in Atlanta, so that won't help you. Multi-band mesh nodes simple don't work here. -Matt -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Our next WISP Workshops are April 12-13 and April 26-27 Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.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] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
desktop or notebook computer. The simple true plug and play nature of the PePLink Surf helps the citizens in St. Cloud to bring the wireless signal indoors with ease. At the same time, the PePLink Surf units can be remotely managed, monitored and provisioned by PePLink's carrier-grade management and reporting solution, PCMS (or PePLink Centralized Management System). This can ensure a scalable and rapid rollout of the wireless systems within a short period of time. This eliminates an onsite installation charge. Being chosen by City of St. Cloud has further endorsed our capability to offer reliable wireless solutions to municipal wireless networks built with mesh network technology, said Alex Chan, Managing Director of PePLink. PePLink Surf together with PCMS is the complete solution specifically designed for today's citywide wireless networks. PePLink Surf series consists of Surf 200BG and Surf 400BG. For more information on PePLink Surf series, please visit http://www.peplink.com http://www.peplink.com/. Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: roflol The city is selling signal boosters (I read that as amps) to anyone that wants them for $170? Oh man, this deployment is gonna come CRASHING down. Hard. It's really too bad these people are too ignorant, stubborn or just plain stupid to call any of us in to help. sigh Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:07 AM Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ --- --- -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Our next WISP Workshops are April 12-13 and April 26-27 Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Our next WISP Workshops are April 12-13 and April 26-27 Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.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] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
How do you raise the antennas above the trees without building really tall poles? Trees around here are 60-70ft. City-owned fiber only exists in places with enough density that there aren't any trees to begin with. Residential areas generally have lots of trees and no reason for fiber runs. 900Mhz won't get you much throughput; certainly not enough to offer an alternative to DSL. -Matt Jack Unger wrote: Then the 5 GHz backhaul network must have antennas that are raised above the trees. Another option is to backhaul with city-owned fiber. Backhauling on 900 MHz is a possible third option. All it takes is rf knowledge, creativity, and cooperation. jack Matt Liotta wrote: Jack Unger wrote: A multi-band mesh node does the backhaul on 5 GHz (sometimes with more than one 5 GHz radio). This reduces (but certainly doesn't eliminate) the 2.4 GHz self-interference and other-network-interference level. You can't use 5 Ghz to go through trees here in Atlanta, so that won't help you. Multi-band mesh nodes simple don't work here. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
OK Matt, being a creative person, you can then suggest the use of DSL for the backhaul... jack Matt Liotta wrote: How do you raise the antennas above the trees without building really tall poles? Trees around here are 60-70ft. City-owned fiber only exists in places with enough density that there aren't any trees to begin with. Residential areas generally have lots of trees and no reason for fiber runs. 900Mhz won't get you much throughput; certainly not enough to offer an alternative to DSL. -Matt Jack Unger wrote: Then the 5 GHz backhaul network must have antennas that are raised above the trees. Another option is to backhaul with city-owned fiber. Backhauling on 900 MHz is a possible third option. All it takes is rf knowledge, creativity, and cooperation. jack Matt Liotta wrote: Jack Unger wrote: A multi-band mesh node does the backhaul on 5 GHz (sometimes with more than one 5 GHz radio). This reduces (but certainly doesn't eliminate) the 2.4 GHz self-interference and other-network-interference level. You can't use 5 Ghz to go through trees here in Atlanta, so that won't help you. Multi-band mesh nodes simple don't work here. -Matt -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Our next WISP Workshops are April 12-13 and April 26-27 Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.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] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
The SR9 cards might be interesting for this app... chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 2:39 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes OK Matt, being a creative person, you can then suggest the use of DSL for the backhaul... jack Matt Liotta wrote: How do you raise the antennas above the trees without building really tall poles? Trees around here are 60-70ft. City-owned fiber only exists in places with enough density that there aren't any trees to begin with. Residential areas generally have lots of trees and no reason for fiber runs. 900Mhz won't get you much throughput; certainly not enough to offer an alternative to DSL. -Matt Jack Unger wrote: Then the 5 GHz backhaul network must have antennas that are raised above the trees. Another option is to backhaul with city-owned fiber. Backhauling on 900 MHz is a possible third option. All it takes is rf knowledge, creativity, and cooperation. jack Matt Liotta wrote: Jack Unger wrote: A multi-band mesh node does the backhaul on 5 GHz (sometimes with more than one 5 GHz radio). This reduces (but certainly doesn't eliminate) the 2.4 GHz self-interference and other-network-interference level. You can't use 5 Ghz to go through trees here in Atlanta, so that won't help you. Multi-band mesh nodes simple don't work here. -Matt -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Our next WISP Workshops are April 12-13 and April 26-27 Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Jack Unger wrote: 1. The attenuation between 2.4 GHz nodes is not enough to prevent each node from hearing multiple other nodes as noise (thus more packet retransmissions and more reduced throughtput). This requires understanding link budgets, signal-to-noise ratios, and receiver threshold specifications. Luckily for us we happen to be a WISP that understands these issues. We have deployed several Tropos-based networks with sufficient attenuation between nodes. 2. Metricom is not a good comparison because: a. They were frequency hoppers on 900 MHz. Physics applies on all spectrum. b. They promised low (128kbps and then 256kbps, if memory serves) throughput. This doesn't compare to today's expected throughput levels. It was stated that the problems occurred for hams at 1200 baud. c. They eventually went to a two-band node that backhauled on 2.4 GHz. so they could increase throughput. Only in select areas; the vast majority of the network was single band. d. Metricom then went out of business. The network did work and it was profitable in a number of cities. The fact that there was a market bust or that company built more cities than they had cash flow to support isn't a technical concern. Physics is still physics and companies need to but don't yet understand wireless physics. They need this understanding before bidding on muni projects and before they make these high-expectation, wireless-for-all, triple-play (voice, video, data) promises to public officials. Once a muni network is engineered incorrectly and deployed incorrectly, it may well take as much additional money to fix it (if it even can be fixed) as it took to deploy it in the first place. Math is still math and companies need to but don't yet understand advanced mathematics. This generalization is just as accurate as your statement, but hopefully seems more absurd. Some companies understand wireless physics. Some of these same companies even deploy wireless networks that work. Some markets meet the correct criteria to have a muni Wi-Fi network that can be successful; some even exist today. How do any of these statements specify the success of muni Wi-Fi in general? -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 450' PoE 48v
First, 450' is way too far for really reliable ethternet, if it is cat 5. Voltage drops due to resistance in the wire. Voltage = Current * Resistance. Longer wire has more resistance. You will need to increase the voltage of the power supply based on the current rating of the device(s) at the other end of the wire and the resistance of the wire you are using. Scott Reed Owner NewWays Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration www.nwwnet.net -- Original Message --- From: Mark Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 11:25:08 -0700 Subject: [WISPA] 450' PoE 48v Hello...got a run of cat5 about 450' that is working but doesn't seem to be sufficiently powering the amplifier built into the antenna. The device is a Terabeam EtherAnt-Turbo/LR (same as Proxim's Terastar EtherAnt/LR). It works but SNR should be better. If I power the thing locally (25' of cat5) it works as it should, so I think it may be insufficient power. It's got a 48v 0.4a power supply. I know that it's far over spec for PoE...but specs were made up from engineers who have to play it safe for what they recommend. So...any field answers to my dilemma? Is more information needed? Perhaps a side question: What drops over distance...volts or amps? Please consider the non-electrically-experienced crowd. Thanks much. Mark Nash Network Engineer UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax --- End of Original Message --- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 450' PoE 48v
Thanks, Scott. So, increased voltage is something to try. And your comment on the cat5 being too far...it was considered initially but the ethernet interface on these units is a 10mb/half duplex interface. My experience tells me that I can reliably do 10mb/half duplex ethernetwith 500 feet of cat5...going back to my old Novell CNE days when 10BaseT was the next greatest thing, replacing Token Ring Arcnet. Mark NashNetwork EngineerUnwiredOnline.Net350 Holly StreetJunction City, OR 97448http://www.uwol.net541-998-541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: Scott Reed To: WISPA General List Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 11:54 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 450' PoE 48v First, 450' is way too far for really reliable ethternet, if it is cat 5. Voltage drops due to resistance in the wire. Voltage = Current * Resistance. Longer wire has more resistance. You will need to increase the voltage of the power supply based on the current rating of the device(s) at the other end of the wire and the resistance of the wire you are using. Scott Reed Owner NewWays Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration www.nwwnet.net -- Original Message --- From: "Mark Nash" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "WISPA General List" wireless@wispa.org Sent: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 11:25:08 -0700 Subject: [WISPA] 450' PoE 48v Hello...got a run of cat5 about 450' that is working but doesn't seem to be sufficiently powering the amplifier built into the antenna. The device is a TerabeamEtherAnt-Turbo/LR (same as Proxim's Terastar EtherAnt/LR). It works but SNR should be better. If I power the thing locally (25' of cat5) it works as it should, so I think it may be insufficient power.It's got a 48v 0.4a power supply. I know that it's far over spec for PoE...but specs were made up from engineers who have to play it safe for what they recommend. So...any field answers to my dilemma? Is more information needed?Perhaps a side question: What drops over distance...volts or amps? Please consider the non-electrically-experienced crowd. Thanks much. Mark Nash Network Engineer UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax --- End of Original Message --- -- 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] UL WiMAX update
Marlon K. wrote: It's funny. I thought that getting the local businesses on broadband would help me sell more of it. People would use it at work and want it at home too right? Wrong. They just do all of their stuff at work and sometimes cancel even the dialup! This is because people don't find enough value in broadband. If you can check all your mail at home and then on your cellphone, what do you need broadband for? That's the story you have to tell... What great things they can do with BB... connect to the community, watch video, download music at iTunes/Y!... etc. You might have to create a niche in order to sell more. Peter -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 450' PoE 48v
The wireless physics discussion in another thread here applies as well. After 100 meters propogation delays can be an issue. If it works, no problem, but be aware, I have seen things work for years and then it quits. If you need the power calculations for your run, feel free to hit me offlist. Scott Reed Owner NewWays Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration www.nwwnet.net -- Original Message --- From: Mark Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 12:02:58 -0700 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 450' PoE 48v Thanks, Scott. So, increased voltage is something to try. And your comment on the cat5 being too far...it was considered initially but the ethernet interface on these units is a 10mb/half duplex interface. My experience tells me that I can reliably do 10mb/half duplex ethernet with 500 feet of cat5...going back to my old Novell CNE days when 10BaseT was the next greatest thing, replacing Token Ring Arcnet. Mark Nash Network Engineer UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: Scott Reed To: WISPA General List Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 11:54 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 450' PoE 48v First, 450' is way too far for really reliable ethternet, if it is cat 5. Voltage drops due to resistance in the wire. Voltage = Current * Resistance. Longer wire has more resistance. You will need to increase the voltage of the power supply based on the current rating of the device(s) at the other end of the wire and the resistance of the wire you are using. Scott Reed Owner NewWays Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration www.nwwnet.net -- Original Message --- From: Mark Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 11:25:08 -0700 Subject: [WISPA] 450' PoE 48v Hello...got a run of cat5 about 450' that is working but doesn't seem to be sufficiently powering the amplifier built into the antenna. The device is a Terabeam EtherAnt-Turbo/LR (same as Proxim's Terastar EtherAnt/LR). It works but SNR should be better. If I power the thing locally (25' of cat5) it works as it should, so I think it may be insufficient power. It's got a 48v 0.4a power supply. I know that it's far over spec for PoE...but specs were made up from engineers who have to play it safe for what they recommend. So...any field answers to my dilemma? Is more information needed? Perhaps a side question: What drops over distance...volts or amps? Please consider the non-electrically-experienced crowd. Thanks much. Mark Nash Network Engineer UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax --- End of Original Message --- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ --- End of Original Message --- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update
Rich, with all due respect, your idea has a REALLY big flaw in it. I love debate. I'll take that as a challenge :-) Once government sets a standard, it's going to be a very long time before anything new comes along. No Darwinism (government standards, really that's what the old Ma Bell system in essence was) is even worse. I agree with you that this is the prevailing wisdom here (and said so). A lot of people really believe this in the United States. That's despite the significant wireless market evidence to the contrary. The FCC set ONE standard for original analog cellular (later knows as AMPS) 30 years ago. Did it stiffle anything new coming along? No. AMPS became the world cellular standard, and companies who invested in it were rewarded with world market. But when digital cellular came along this new thinking had set in. A US Digital Cellular standard was written (USDC) and almost immediately companies began crying to do differently (notably Qualcom and Motorola). There was double-talk that if one standard is good, two standards must be better (nonsense ... if there is more than one standard there is in fact no standard). The FCC went along with the US wireless industry's request for Darwinism (IMO because there was a new sense that technical flexibility in granting licenses would make them more valuable and Washington was getting an inkling of how much companies might be willing to pay for licenses in a bidding auction system). Essentially we have pure Darwinism in US digital cellular today. Does it serve the public best? Does it serve the carriers best? No to both ... all it did was give-away the entire world digital cellular market to Europe's GSM which had no problem being judged a better choice compared to America's free-for-all. Oh, and your cellphone can't get coverage from 4 out of 5 towers that you pass by (because they're different technologies). They are now building to catch up No way. Non-US manufacturers own the digital cellular market, and significant portions of the US infastructure is being replaced with European designed GSM GPRS. The US lost leadership in 2nd 3rd generation cellular. A little test: What brand cellphones are the market leaders in America, and where country are they from? What about boadband wireless internet: Once government sets a standard, it's going to be a very long time before anything new comes along. There is a middle ground. When Europe set aside the RLAN band (for hyperlan) they didn't mandate that systems had to be hyperlan to get the European equivalent of FCC type acceptance. They picked 2 technical elements of playing nice and made them mandatory requirements for type acceptance (TPC DFS). Systems had to support Transmit Power Control and Dynamic Frequency Selection to be considered for compliance. Europe set this up in the late 90's I think. Oh how I wish US license exempt bands required part-15, *and* TPC DFS. How would it have impacted wisps that employ 802.11 technologies? Well, 802.11h (I believe it's the h suffix) has both these attributes (I presume the h suffix version was designed to make 802.11 saleable into European RLAN markets ... can anyone comment on this?). So if this had been a US requirement, equipment for the WISP market would today all support the .h version and it wouldn't have impacted your system ... BUT it would have prevented destructive interference between your system and some other manufacturer choosing to market equipment that didn't play nice. I think it would have been better for all wisps. No? Market forces are best left alone. Standards are a fascinating field into themselves. It's a little politics, public relations, technology, business, and government all rolled up together. Laisse-fare turned out NOT to be in the best interests of the United States manufacturers, carriers, or citizens. It's a world market and citizens expect their government to do what's best for their citizens, their providers, and their manufacturers. History showed us that let the market work itself out was not the best answer. A good case study is VHS vs BETA. What did VHS lead in the US market for 20 years even though BETA was better? Better standards strategy! Sony learned their lessons well and did a complete 180 on the standards strategy for 8mm. A well thought out standard helps everyone. Rich - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:33 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update Rich, with all due respect, your idea has a REALLY big flaw in it. Once government sets a standard, it's going to be a very long time before anything new comes along. Pure Darwinism is bad in that it requires too much capital investment. No Darwinism (government standards, really that's what the old Ma Bell system in essence
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Jack, Not a problem. This discussion needed the information and no one else posted it. I have been reading up on this network since Ken went to the MuniWireless Show in Atlanta. Unfortunately some of the articles I read are no longer available. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Jack Unger wrote: Dawn, Thanks for posting the St. Cloud PepLink and HP info. --- --- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Similar is not the same. I couldn't find detailed specifications online. However, I do see that the unit has lower transmit power, it doesn't seem to be capable of being powered by AC, it doesn't seem capable of powering other devices such as a Canopy or Trango SM, and while there is a picture of some separate photo-cell power there is no specifications for that either. For example, many photo-cell taps are limited to 240v, but many street lights are 277v/480v. -Matt Jeffrey Thomas wrote: Airmatrix offers very similar features for less than 1/3 the cost of tropos. They also ofer Pole mounted power, and actually have a much lower power consumption, in addition to having multiple configurations including dual Radio diversity 2.4, dual radio diversity 2.4/5.8, etc. - Jeff On 4/24/06 10:27 AM, Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A Tropos unit has a 1W transmitter, is capable of being powered via PoE or via AC delivered through standard outlets as well as a variety of photo-cell taps including high-voltage ones. When powered with AC, it is capable of providing PoE power out of its Ethernet ports supporting equipment from Motorola and Trango even though neither using standard PoE. It mounts like a dream, includes level bubbles for perfect orientation, and units can be slid into and out of place with only a single screw enabling nodes to be changed in less than 5 minutes. Quite simply, a Tropos unit is beautifully engineered. Where can I find the parts to make the same thing in a single package? -Matt chris cooper wrote: Why not just buy the cards, boards, antennas and make a few yourself? c -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:46 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes Then there are companies like airmatrix that charge less than 1k per node. The key with mesh is density, and many mesh startup's fail because they Underbuild their networks. - Jeff On 4/24/06 7:53 AM, John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know what equipment they are using, but Cisco AP1500's (mesh) are abnout $3700 each and Cisco recommends 18-20 per square mile. Thats $74,000 for the boxes plus antennas, mounts, POE and install. John -Original Message- From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:26 AM To: ''WISPA General List'' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes $173K per mile build out cost? Somebody just bought a new boat.. c -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006 -- 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 Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Matt, hit me offlist and I will be glad to send you all that. We have used AM for deployments on lightpoles and I know there are configurations available to power more than a single unit. - Jeff On 4/24/06 1:42 PM, Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Similar is not the same. I couldn't find detailed specifications online. However, I do see that the unit has lower transmit power, it doesn't seem to be capable of being powered by AC, it doesn't seem capable of powering other devices such as a Canopy or Trango SM, and while there is a picture of some separate photo-cell power there is no specifications for that either. For example, many photo-cell taps are limited to 240v, but many street lights are 277v/480v. -Matt Jeffrey Thomas wrote: Airmatrix offers very similar features for less than 1/3 the cost of tropos. They also ofer Pole mounted power, and actually have a much lower power consumption, in addition to having multiple configurations including dual Radio diversity 2.4, dual radio diversity 2.4/5.8, etc. - Jeff On 4/24/06 10:27 AM, Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A Tropos unit has a 1W transmitter, is capable of being powered via PoE or via AC delivered through standard outlets as well as a variety of photo-cell taps including high-voltage ones. When powered with AC, it is capable of providing PoE power out of its Ethernet ports supporting equipment from Motorola and Trango even though neither using standard PoE. It mounts like a dream, includes level bubbles for perfect orientation, and units can be slid into and out of place with only a single screw enabling nodes to be changed in less than 5 minutes. Quite simply, a Tropos unit is beautifully engineered. Where can I find the parts to make the same thing in a single package? -Matt chris cooper wrote: Why not just buy the cards, boards, antennas and make a few yourself? c -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:46 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes Then there are companies like airmatrix that charge less than 1k per node. The key with mesh is density, and many mesh startup's fail because they Underbuild their networks. - Jeff On 4/24/06 7:53 AM, John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know what equipment they are using, but Cisco AP1500's (mesh) are abnout $3700 each and Cisco recommends 18-20 per square mile. Thats $74,000 for the boxes plus antennas, mounts, POE and install. John -Original Message- From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:26 AM To: ''WISPA General List'' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes $173K per mile build out cost? Somebody just bought a new boat.. c -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006 -- 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 Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update
Marlon, I think I can appreciate most everything you've said. I can only add to each of your points, while accepting your input, why I think that your (and my) life would be better if we had some more constructive requirements in the wisp market than anything that fits the transmit mask. It's interesting that you should bring up a 30 YEAR old technology as a good example for an equipment life standards discussion. hehehehehe It was just an example of how FATALLY flawed the change to let the market decide between generation I cellular (analog) and generation II cellular (first generation digital cellular) was, and we've all paid dearly for it (whether most people know it or not). It was the blanket assertion that No-Darwinism is necessarily worse than Darwinism and to be rejected out-of-hand. US manufacturers are free to choose who and what they want! It's working perfectly. I think you meant carriers or providers in the above. Where GSM rules apply (that's most of the world) service is seamless ... it's the best world for the customers. Since wisps business as service providing is mostly fixed, I'll grant you that seamless is not a meaningful advantage. But consider this. As a service provider in the GSM world all brands of GSM equipment are interchangable. From a service provider perspective you can get the best equipment prices (because there's more choices of suppiers). From the manufacturer, they can sell the same equipment world-wide, so they build in higher volume. From a manufacturer perspective I know this inherently, but service providers should all know that the volume a manufacturer produces has a higher impact than anything else on manufacturing cost (and thus selling price). Equipment manufacturers providers who build deploy GSM enjoy significantly lower equipment cost. So let's try this again: US manufacturers are free to choose who and what they want! It's working perfectly. If working perfectly means you don't care that the equipment costs more because of the free-for-all and you've no protection from destructive interworking, then I accept it's working perfectly! We'll see. That's what the FCC just did with 3650. Agreed. I'm hopeful that this was a good move. And lets be real here eh? No matter how good something we do is, much of Europe will do it differently just because we did it first. Not quite the point. I don't care what Europe does either. More countries on this planet now choose to establish rules compatible with ETSI than with the US FCC (that's another big part of what the cellular free-for-all here cost us). THAT was my point. Look at the manufacturers that you buy your wisp equipment from. They are charging you for equipment that they can only build for US markets and the few countries left on the planet that accept US FCC wireless rules (not too many). Imagine how much less it might cost you if they could manufacturer in the greater volume to sell to all markets. As for having ALL devices be wifi? No thanks! There are good things coming out of the proprietary market. I agree, wasn't implying all devices have to be wifi. Consider this example: One of the middle bands at 5GHz is being opened for ANY technology, as long as they have a US DOT approved DFS (as I understand it). Could be 802.11, could be Canopy, could be anything ... as long as they all support the DFS so that they don't talk on the US military radar. This is what I understood ETSI to have set for the 5GHz RLAN bands (in most countries on the planet) ... doesn't have to be hyperlan2, as long as they all support TPC DFS. Where do you think 5.4 Canopy has been shipping for some time already? A couple organizing standard requirements doesn't mean everybody has to deploy the exact same technology, but it could make everybody's life a whole lot better. This is what I suggested under the term middle ground ... in your terms somewhere costructively between Pure-Darwinism and No-Darwinism as you put it. What made beta better than VHS? Certainly part of what made VHS better was the availability. Sony designed Beta, but intended to be the only supplier (Proprietary). VHS was successful because of the availability, because of the consortium of companies who all agreed to support a common design. VHS won precisely because of the standard (the availability as you put it). When Sony came out with their next format (8mm) they made sure they offered the design to a consortium of companies who would agree to support a compatible design, which is why 8mm was succesful ... a 180 from their previous (Beta) position. Japanese learned fast. World 3rd generation cellular standards are a battleground between Japan and Europe (US design is not even a contender, but US manufacturers try to feed their inputs to both Japan and Europe standards bodies ... but we're the outsiders in both venues). Technically? Maybe Beta
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Its amazing how many integrators forget the basic principle, that the RF reflection off the outside of a concrete or brick wall is at a higher signal strength than the signal that penetrates the wall and enters the home. What good is signal into the home if you wipe out the transport down the street? I thing the Muni Mesh needs a few real world failures fast to give everyone a reality check. Its not that I'm wishing harm to others, its just that I do not see any way Muni Mesh its going to work out well technically for most big city Muni Mesh WiFi networks as designed. By allowing the flaws to surface early will possibly save a lot of money for Munis and a lot of damage to reputation of the capabilty of the technology. Right now there is a rat race to see who can do the successful case study first, copying off other Muni's plans that have not been proven successful yet. I look at it as the race to self destruction. The muni nets that survive I believe are going to be the ones that are smart enough to diversify on their spectrum choice. Robert Frost- I took the path less travelled and it made all the difference.. The biggest probelm is to may are going to try and jump on 5.8Ghz, the high power band. Unfortuneately both on t he front mile to attempt penetrate walls, and on the backend for backhaul. But what they are going to do instead is interfere and saturate/waste the most valuable band unecessarilly. The secret to Muni Mesh Wifi success is going to be their abilty to acknowledge the new spectrum available to them such as the vast 255 Mhz of 5.4Ghz. There is enough there for Last mile, transport, and backhaul, and likely not going to interfere with much of any one as it is fresh under used spectrum. High Power is not needed for the small coverage areas typical of a city. As Matt Liotta once pointed out in previous debates, the problem is not the principle MESH. MESH is a valid technique to increase capacity and redundancy, if used properly for the right applications. I believe the problem is the ignoring of the physics of RF propogation. The other flaw that cities forget is that there are advantages of using multiple levels of height as well as density. Although Munis own the ride of ways, they rarely own the height of the city or preferred broadcast sites, and taht puts them at a disadvantage. I believe that many small town muni networks will do well. But they often have different characteristics than the big city. Buildings often have different arhetecture for one. Fewers projects and interests to interfere, as another reason. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brian Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 11:10 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes Jack, I hate to say it but didn't we say I told you so There is just not enough spectrum to design networks like this to work with anything but dedicated CPE devices with outdoor antennas. Simply flooding an area with more signal to let laptops inside a house work will not solve the problem. It just creates more noise on already maxed out spectrum. I really wish the vendors and project stalwarts would admit this is a problem with these networks and not gloss it over. Self interference and outside interference are always going to be huge problems in these muni-networks. Everyone trying to build on the fact that off the shelf consumer devices can access this network will be the downfall. Wi-fi was never designed for a massive outdoor deployment such as this and when you try to make up for the fact that you do not have control over the CPE when it comes to proper RF planning you are doomed to failure. Just my 2 cents. Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com http://www.wirelessmapping.com -Original Message- From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:29 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni problems that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be done correctly and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to play a positive role in proper network design and operation however most muni networks are incorrectly designed by people with limited wireless experience (yes, that even includes some mesh network vendors) which will lead to network failure, waste of taxpayer money, and possible loss of jobs on the part of the city IT folks (not to mention the elected officials) who backed the networks without first learning about how wireless technology really works. jack George wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com
