Re: [WISPA] What do you think?

[Jack Unger]

I was wondering when WISPs were going to WAKE UP to the backbone 
providers both setting the tolls AND operating the toll booths.


Looks like it's -

1. Kiss up
2. Pay up, or
3. Turn around and bend over.

Remember the old saying - "The big fish eat the little fish"



Mark Koskenmaki wrote:

The question is, will backbone providers start prioritizing traffic, or will
last mile providers?If it's last mile providers, it's an opportunity for
those who aren't those trying to milk the last buck from the customer -
opportunity for me.  An advantage for me.

If backbone providers do this, we're all screwed.

North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
personal correspondence to:  mark at neofast dot net
sales inquiries to:  purchasing at neofast dot net
Fast Internet, NO WIRES!

-
- Original Message - 
From: "Peter R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 7:58 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] What do you think?




I think if you haven't already contacted your Congress critter about
this, you should do it first thing in the morning.


Jeff Broadwick wrote:



Sorry for the cross post...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/internet/05/25/the.web.toll/index.html



Coming soon: The Web toll
New laws may transform cyberspace and the way you surf it

By Tim Folger
Popular Science



--
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 Workshop is June 21-22 in Atlanta, GA.
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] What do you think?

[Mark Koskenmaki]

The question is, will backbone providers start prioritizing traffic, or will
last mile providers?If it's last mile providers, it's an opportunity for
those who aren't those trying to milk the last buck from the customer -
opportunity for me.  An advantage for me.

If backbone providers do this, we're all screwed.

North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
personal correspondence to:  mark at neofast dot net
sales inquiries to:  purchasing at neofast dot net
Fast Internet, NO WIRES!

-
- Original Message - 
From: "Peter R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 7:58 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] What do you think?


> I think if you haven't already contacted your Congress critter about
> this, you should do it first thing in the morning.
>
>
> Jeff Broadwick wrote:
>
> >Sorry for the cross post...
> >
> >http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/internet/05/25/the.web.toll/index.html
> >
> >
> >
> >Coming soon: The Web toll
> >New laws may transform cyberspace and the way you surf it
> >
> >By Tim Folger
> >Popular Science
> >
> -- 
> 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] 3650 equipment

[Patrick Leary]

Unfortunately, such CPE are not going to happen in 5.8GHz, WiMAX or not.
Neither the band physics or power limits allow for it.

There are a host of other major issues surrounding UL WiMAX that all work
against it appearing any time this year. These include at least the
following:
- the uncertainty over 3650MHz. This is a much better potential WiMAX UL
band than 5.8GHz for three reasons - power, physics, and less ambient
interference (no consumer devices).
- the WiMAX Forum profile for UL WiMAX only includes 5.8GHz, so it excludes
355MHz of band in 5GHz. 
- the 802.16 MAC is poorly suited as written for unlicensed bands since it
assumes no competition for the air and has no mechanism for battling
interference. Thus the formation by the IEEE of TG 802.16h, a task group we
chair that is trying to come up with some technology neutral method for
sharing bands, even among competing technologies like 802.11 and 802.16.
- lack of self-install limits the creation of a mass market
- existing UL equipment prices are already at thresholds for where WiMAX CPE
will be later this year and WiMAX base stations are much more expensive than
UL APs
- the only UL WIMAX profile covers only 802.16d-2004, known as fixed WiMAX.
The ratification of 802.16e-2005 largely will result in .e superseding .d
since .e can also be used for fixed, but provides soft migration path to
full mobile. For example, the North American versions of BreezeMAX we are
bringing will be 802.16e-2005, bypassing .d entirely. 

All these things stack the cards against UL WiMAX, at least in a 5.8GHz
variant. That is also why for UL in 5GHz we lead with BreezeACCESS VL and
will for some time. We believe it to be the UL 5GHz of record, especially
with upcoming firmware version 4.0, which, among other things brings 802.3
QinQ VLAN, automatic channel bandwidth scanning and selection, over 40,000
pps and with the new MAP (multimedia application prioritization) feature
allows for simultaneous VoIP calls per sector of as much as 280 WITH a MOS
score of 4.0, which is very high voice QoS. That is a 750% increase over
previous VoIP performance. I realize the average WISP thinks VL is just your
basic Atheros chipset in an outdoor case, but the reality is far different.
In our stuff, the chips are just the basic building block.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 5:58 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Is Alvarion going to do the same for 5.8G unlicensed Wimax?
All though license and high power may not be there, the technical features 
could have a major positive impact.

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


- Original Message - 
From: "Patrick Leary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 5:40 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


> A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding
> much higher spectral efficiency and system gain.
>
> Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other 
> factors
> are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e 
> version
> of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base
> station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a 
> SIM
> card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and
> you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna.
>
> Patrick Leary
> AVP Marketing
> Alvarion, Inc.
> o: 650.314.2628
> c: 760.580.0080
> Vonage: 650.641.1243
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
>
>> 3.5Ghz does,
>
> I find that hard to believe.  2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely 
> on
>
> 900Mhz.
>
> What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task?
>
> With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP 
> or
> mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed.
>
> Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US.
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "jeffrey thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:02 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
>
>
>> The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed service
>> to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors.
>>
>> 5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors
>>
>> 5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors
>>
>> 4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors
>>
>> 3.5Ghz does, to "portable" devices similar to the equipment used by
>> clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works indoors
>> to about 3 

Re: [WISPA] What do you think?

[Peter R.]

I think if you haven't already contacted your Congress critter about 
this, you should do it first thing in the morning.



Jeff Broadwick wrote:


Sorry for the cross post...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/internet/05/25/the.web.toll/index.html



Coming soon: The Web toll
New laws may transform cyberspace and the way you surf it

By Tim Folger
Popular Science


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

[Patrick Leary]

All WiMAX vendors will have some version of this type of CPE since that is a
mandatory requirement for licensed band operators. Each will have their own
attempts at special sauce to differentiate their offering. It will get very
interesting come fall (which is not to say that these last 8 years have not
been interesting!)

Patrick 

-Original Message-
From: George Rogato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 3:15 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Patrick Leary wrote:
> A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding
> much higher spectral efficiency and system gain.
> 
> Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other
factors
> are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e
version
> of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base
> station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a
SIM
> card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and
> you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna.
> 
> Patrick Leary
> AVP Marketing
> Alvarion, Inc.
> o: 650.314.2628
> c: 760.580.0080
> Vonage: 650.641.1243

I don't know how much more we cn ask for, "zero truck roll self install"

How well does it penetrate trees and what kind of bal park pricing are 
we talking here.

Please throw something out there for pricing.

Thanks

George

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
viruses.








 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
viruses.




-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Coming soon: The Web toll

[Peter R.]

After all this time, you still don't get it
USF, taxes, and national interest are built into the PSTN.
The FCC E-911 ruling was just one hurdle to prevent VoIP from 
deflowering the PSTN.

As it is, at every turn, the BOCs are losing lines.
Cable has taken almost 10M VoIP lines already.
Universities are moving to VOIP in droves.
U of South Florida in Tampa has 42000 Avaya handsets.
U of Central Florida in Orlando has 24000 handsets that Telcove just won 
from BellSouth.

The VPF is on track for 10B minutes. (Might explain Primus' woes).
Hurricane damage hurt Sprint, SBC and BST these last 3 years - to the 
tune of 100's of millions.

Profits are dropping quarter over quarter.
They are in a price war with cable while racking up debt.

Things will be done to preserve the USF fund and the tax base.
As Ken said at ISPCON: "Who wants to be in office when the PSTN goes down?"

- Peter


Frank Muto wrote:

Well one would think so.  If the Bell's feel they need to be 
compensated, then pay the thousand of ISP's and Clec's they put out of 
business by use of their political contributions. Their day is coming 
to pay the piper one way or another.
 
 
 
Frank Muto

Co-founder -  Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA
Telecom Summit Ad Hoc Committee
http://gigabytemarch.blog.com/ www.wbia.us 
 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Federal Excise tax

[Peter R.]

You can only collect 3 years worth according to law.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Coming soon: The Web toll

[Frank Muto]

Well one would think so.  If the Bell's feel 
they need to be compensated, then pay the thousand of ISP's and Clec's they 
put out of business by use of their political contributions. Their day is coming 
to pay the piper one way or another.
 
 
 
Frank MutoCo-founder -  Washington Bureau 
for ISP Advocacy - WBIATelecom Summit Ad Hoc Committeehttp://gigabytemarch.blog.com/ 
www.wbia.us
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Cliff 
  Leboeuf 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 5:37 
PM
  Subject: [WISPA] Coming soon: The Web 
  toll
  
  
   
  CNN 
  Report…
   
  http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/internet/05/25/the.web.toll/index.html
   
  
  

  -- 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] 3650 equipment

[Tom DeReggi]

Is Alvarion going to do the same for 5.8G unlicensed Wimax?
All though license and high power may not be there, the technical features 
could have a major positive impact.


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


- Original Message - 
From: "Patrick Leary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 5:40 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment



A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding
much higher spectral efficiency and system gain.

Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other 
factors
are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e 
version

of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base
station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a 
SIM

card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and
you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


3.5Ghz does,


I find that hard to believe.  2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely 
on


900Mhz.

What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task?

With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP 
or

mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed.

Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US.

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


- Original Message - 
From: "jeffrey thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:02 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment



The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed service
to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors.

5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors

3.5Ghz does, to "portable" devices similar to the equipment used by
clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works indoors
to about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO.

When you can deliver a zero truck roll model with 90% or above
availablity, is when operators by the truckload will deploy equipment.
At that point, you will see deployments in the thousands, like the ones
in mexico of 750,000 homes serviced.

-

Jeff



On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:20:23 -0400, "Tom DeReggi"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

How do you figure?
You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that?

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


- Original Message - 
From: "Jeffrey Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


> Frankly,
>
> The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the
> industry
> to
> really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found
> is
> that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will be
> small
> and limited deployments of wisp size and not many large scale
> deployments
> outside of 2.5ghz or 700 mhz operators.
>
> -
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
> On 5/24/06 6:14 AM, "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their Form
>> 477s
>> also
>>
>> The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards
>> "flaunting
>> the rules" -- namely the fact that you are just reinforcing the ILEC
>> argument that unlicensed spectrum just creates a bunch of "cowboys"
>> that
>> can't be taken seriously
>>
>> Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink
>> flamingo
>> suit when he represents the industry in DC
>>
>> -Charles
>>
>> ---
>> CWLab
>> Technology Architects
>> http://www.cwlab.com
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On
>> Behalf Of jeffrey thomas
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:37 PM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
>>
>>
>> In the larger scale of things- when you compare this to a carrier
>> deployment
>> which would deliver thousands of CPE's service, this is a test. I 
>> know



>> of
>> one company that has recieved 28 STA's for 14 markets, for over 2000
>> CPE.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> On Tue, 23 May 2006 21:33:33 -0400, "Gino A. Villarini"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>>> Do you really think towerstream need 150 field units or cpes to
>>> "test"
>>> a single base station?
>>>
>>> Gino A. Villarini
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
>>> tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL P

Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

[Tom DeReggi]

Pretty exciting.

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


- Original Message - 
From: "Patrick Leary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 5:40 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment



A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding
much higher spectral efficiency and system gain.

Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other 
factors
are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e 
version

of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base
station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a 
SIM

card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and
you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


3.5Ghz does,


I find that hard to believe.  2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely 
on


900Mhz.

What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task?

With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP 
or

mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed.

Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US.

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


- Original Message - 
From: "jeffrey thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:02 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment



The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed service
to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors.

5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors

3.5Ghz does, to "portable" devices similar to the equipment used by
clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works indoors
to about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO.

When you can deliver a zero truck roll model with 90% or above
availablity, is when operators by the truckload will deploy equipment.
At that point, you will see deployments in the thousands, like the ones
in mexico of 750,000 homes serviced.

-

Jeff



On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:20:23 -0400, "Tom DeReggi"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

How do you figure?
You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that?

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


- Original Message - 
From: "Jeffrey Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


> Frankly,
>
> The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the
> industry
> to
> really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found
> is
> that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will be
> small
> and limited deployments of wisp size and not many large scale
> deployments
> outside of 2.5ghz or 700 mhz operators.
>
> -
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
> On 5/24/06 6:14 AM, "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their Form
>> 477s
>> also
>>
>> The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards
>> "flaunting
>> the rules" -- namely the fact that you are just reinforcing the ILEC
>> argument that unlicensed spectrum just creates a bunch of "cowboys"
>> that
>> can't be taken seriously
>>
>> Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink
>> flamingo
>> suit when he represents the industry in DC
>>
>> -Charles
>>
>> ---
>> CWLab
>> Technology Architects
>> http://www.cwlab.com
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On
>> Behalf Of jeffrey thomas
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:37 PM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
>>
>>
>> In the larger scale of things- when you compare this to a carrier
>> deployment
>> which would deliver thousands of CPE's service, this is a test. I 
>> know



>> of
>> one company that has recieved 28 STA's for 14 markets, for over 2000
>> CPE.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> On Tue, 23 May 2006 21:33:33 -0400, "Gino A. Villarini"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>>> Do you really think towerstream need 150 field units or cpes to
>>> "test"
>>> a single base station?
>>>
>>> Gino A. Villarini
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
>>> tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On Behalf Of Jack Unger
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:07 PM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
>>>
>>> Gin

Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

[George Rogato]

To make it easier, maybe you can give what you believe to be an industry 
price. I realize you can't give a price of Alvarion at this point. But 
you can give us a hip shoot of what you think common pricing for ce and 
ap are.


Thanks

George

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] 3650 equipment

[George Rogato]

Patrick Leary wrote:

A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding
much higher spectral efficiency and system gain.

Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other factors
are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e version
of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base
station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a SIM
card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and
you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243


I don't know how much more we cn ask for, "zero truck roll self install"

How well does it penetrate trees and what kind of bal park pricing are 
we talking here.


Please throw something out there for pricing.

Thanks

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] Coming soon: The Web toll

[Jeromie Reeves]

Is that not that what faster accounts are for?!?

Jeromie


Cliff Leboeuf wrote:


CNN Report…

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/internet/05/25/the.web.toll/index.html



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

[Patrick Leary]

A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding
much higher spectral efficiency and system gain.

Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other factors
are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e version
of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base
station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a SIM
card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and
you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

> 3.5Ghz does,

I find that hard to believe.  2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely on

900Mhz.

What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task?

With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP or 
mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed.

Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US.

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


- Original Message - 
From: "jeffrey thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:02 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


> The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed service
> to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors.
>
> 5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors
>
> 5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors
>
> 4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors
>
> 3.5Ghz does, to "portable" devices similar to the equipment used by
> clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works indoors
> to about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO.
>
> When you can deliver a zero truck roll model with 90% or above
> availablity, is when operators by the truckload will deploy equipment.
> At that point, you will see deployments in the thousands, like the ones
> in mexico of 750,000 homes serviced.
>
> -
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:20:23 -0400, "Tom DeReggi"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> How do you figure?
>> You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that?
>>
>> Tom DeReggi
>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "Jeffrey Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
>>
>>
>> > Frankly,
>> >
>> > The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the 
>> > industry
>> > to
>> > really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found 
>> > is
>> > that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will be 
>> > small
>> > and limited deployments of wisp size and not many large scale 
>> > deployments
>> > outside of 2.5ghz or 700 mhz operators.
>> >
>> > -
>> >
>> > Jeff
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 5/24/06 6:14 AM, "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their Form
>> >> 477s
>> >> also
>> >>
>> >> The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards
>> >> "flaunting
>> >> the rules" -- namely the fact that you are just reinforcing the ILEC
>> >> argument that unlicensed spectrum just creates a bunch of "cowboys" 
>> >> that
>> >> can't be taken seriously
>> >>
>> >> Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink 
>> >> flamingo
>> >> suit when he represents the industry in DC
>> >>
>> >> -Charles
>> >>
>> >> ---
>> >> CWLab
>> >> Technology Architects
>> >> http://www.cwlab.com
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -Original Message-
>> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>> >> On
>> >> Behalf Of jeffrey thomas
>> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:37 PM
>> >> To: WISPA General List
>> >> Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> In the larger scale of things- when you compare this to a carrier
>> >> deployment
>> >> which would deliver thousands of CPE's service, this is a test. I know

>> >> of
>> >> one company that has recieved 28 STA's for 14 markets, for over 2000 
>> >> CPE.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -
>> >>
>> >> Jeff
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 23 May 2006 21:33:33 -0400, "Gino A. Villarini"
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> said:
>> >>> Do you really think towerstream need 150 field units or cpes to 
>> >>> "test"
>> >>> a single base station?
>> >>>
>> >>> Gino A. Villarini
>> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
>> >>> tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
>> >>>
>> >>> -Original Message-
>> >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >>> On Behalf Of Jack Unger
>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:07 PM
>> >>> To: WISPA 

[WISPA] Coming soon: The Web toll

[Cliff Leboeuf]

 

CNN Report…

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/internet/05/25/the.web.toll/index.html

 






-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

RE: [WISPA] SR5s and 36miles - INPUT NEEDED

[danlist]

Title: Message








I am using the MMCX connectors, 6”
pigtail, with 25’ of lmr600

 



Dan Metcalf
Wireless Broadband Systems
www.wbisp.com
781-566-2053 ext 6201

1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
support: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 













From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 5:17
PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] SR5s and
36miles - INPUT NEEDED



 

That works out to 22-23db output at the SR5 card
(depending on cable loss from the card to the antenna).

Travis
Microserv

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

I have a 30mile link, using the MTI dual
pol’s panels, 23db, signals are -75dbm and 2/3rds of the link are
over water… I have 2 radios on each end

 

 

 



Dan Metcalf
Wireless Broadband Systems
www.wbisp.com
781-566-2053 ext 6201

1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
support: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 













From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 3:03
PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] SR5s and
36miles - INPUT NEEDED



 



Johnny, I talked to someone who has done extensive
testing with Ubiquiti's cards,  and from that conversation, I would use
about 19 - 20 dbm as the number to go by.





 





Apparently, there's some variability as production
has gone on, not all are the same, it seems.





 





But, if you use those numbers, I believe your answers
will be AT LEAST that good or better, no matter what. 





 





Mark





 





 





 





North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
personal correspondence to:  mark at neofast dot net
sales inquiries to:  purchasing at neofast dot net
Fast Internet, NO WIRES!
-







- Original Message - 





From: JohnnyO






To: 'WISPA General
List' 





Sent: Thursday,
May 25, 2006 10:42 AM





Subject: RE: [WISPA]
SR5s and 36miles - INPUT NEEDED





 





Mike - what is the actual output of the
SR5s you are seeing ? Or anyone else have exact figures - Should I be running
my calculations using 21dbm or 26dbm as advertised ?





 





JohnnyO





-Original
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Mike Varner
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 10:04
AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] SR5s and
36miles - INPUT NEEDED



It may be difficult to provide a mission critical
link with 2-footers; but then again I am using CM-9's on a 17-mile
link.  I know this doesn't help you; but I just recently replaced my
PacWireless 2ft dishes with 2ft dual-polarity Radiowaves dishes and gained 4dB
on both ends.  Signal level is around -62dB.





 





Mike







- Original Message - 





From: JohnnyO






To: WISPA General List






Sent: Thursday,
May 25, 2006 9:24 AM





Subject: [WISPA]
SR5s and 36miles - INPUT NEEDED





 



I've run the path
calcs with Radio Mobile and I should see low -70s using the SR5s in Mikrotik
and 2ft dishes at 36miles.

My question is - how many people out there have links 35+
miles with SR5s / Mikrotik and 2ft Panels or dishes ? I have a link I need to
have up as mission critical for a company prior to Saturday and all I have
on-hand is 2ft PacWireless Dishes……….

Regards, 

JohnnyO 

 







-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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











-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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





 

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.7.1/347 - Release Date: 05/24/2006

 

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.7.1/347 - Release Date: 05/24/2006










--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.7.1/347 - Release Date: 05/24/2006
 

  

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.7.1/347 - Release Date: 05/24/2006
 
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] SR5s and 36miles - INPUT NEEDED

[Travis Johnson]

Title: Message




That works out to 22-23db output at the SR5 card (depending on cable
loss from the card to the antenna).

Travis
Microserv

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  
  
  
  I have a
30mile link, using the MTI dual
pol’s panels, 23db, signals are -75dbm and 2/3rds of the
link
are over water… I have 2 radios on each end
   
   
   
  
  Dan Metcalf
Wireless Broadband Systems
  www.wbisp.com
781-566-2053 ext 6201
  1-888-wbsystem
(888)
927-9783
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
support: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   
  
  
  
  
  
  From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki
  Sent: Thursday, May
25, 2006 3:03
PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA]
SR5s and
36miles - INPUT NEEDED
  
   
  
  Johnny, I talked to
someone who has done extensive testing
with Ubiquiti's cards,  and from that conversation, I would use about
19 -
20 dbm as the number to go by.
  
  
   
  
  
  Apparently, there's some
variability as production has gone
on, not all are the same, it seems.
  
  
   
  
  
  But, if you use those
numbers, I believe your answers will
be AT LEAST that good or better, no matter what. 
  
  
   
  
  
  Mark
  
  
   
  
  
   
  
  
   
  
  
  North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
personal correspondence to:  mark at neofast dot net
sales inquiries to:  purchasing at neofast dot net
Fast Internet, NO WIRES!
-
  
  

- Original Message
- 


From: JohnnyO



To: 'WISPA
General
List' 


Sent: Thursday, May 25,
2006 10:42 AM


Subject: RE: [WISPA] SR5s
and 36miles - INPUT NEEDED


 


Mike - what
is the actual output of the
SR5s you are seeing ? Or anyone else have exact figures - Should I be
running
my calculations using 21dbm or 26dbm as advertised ?


 


JohnnyO


  -Original
Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf
Of Mike Varner
  Sent: Thursday,
May 25, 2006 10:04
AM
  To: WISPA General
List
  Subject: Re:
[WISPA] SR5s and
36miles - INPUT NEEDED
  
  It may be difficult to
provide a mission critical link with
2-footers; but then again I am using CM-9's on a 17-mile link.  I
know this doesn't help you; but I just recently replaced my PacWireless
2ft
dishes with 2ft dual-polarity Radiowaves dishes and gained 4dB on both
ends.  Signal level is around -62dB.
  
  
   
  
  
  Mike
  
  

- Original Message
- 


From: JohnnyO



To: WISPA
General List



Sent: Thursday, May 25,
2006 9:24 AM


Subject: [WISPA] SR5s and
36miles - INPUT NEEDED


 

I've
run the path calcs with Radio Mobile and I should see low -70s using
the SR5s
in Mikrotik and 2ft dishes at 36miles.
My
question is - how many people out there have links 35+ miles with SR5s
/ Mikrotik
and 2ft Panels or dishes ? I have a link I need to have up as mission
critical
for a company prior to Saturday and all I have on-hand is 2ft
PacWireless
Dishes……….
Regards,

JohnnyO

 


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
  
  
  
  
  --
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.7.1/347 - Release Date:
05/24/2006
   

  
  --
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.7.1/347 - Release Date:
05/24/2006
   



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

RE: [WISPA] SR5s and 36miles - INPUT NEEDED

[danlist]

Title: Message








I have a 30mile link, using the MTI dual
pol’s panels, 23db, signals are -75dbm and 2/3rds of the link
are over water… I have 2 radios on each end

 

 

 



Dan Metcalf
Wireless Broadband Systems
www.wbisp.com
781-566-2053 ext 6201

1-888-wbsystem (888)
927-9783
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
support: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 













From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 3:03
PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] SR5s and
36miles - INPUT NEEDED



 



Johnny, I talked to someone who has done extensive testing
with Ubiquiti's cards,  and from that conversation, I would use about 19 -
20 dbm as the number to go by.





 





Apparently, there's some variability as production has gone
on, not all are the same, it seems.





 





But, if you use those numbers, I believe your answers will
be AT LEAST that good or better, no matter what. 





 





Mark





 





 





 





North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
personal correspondence to:  mark at neofast dot net
sales inquiries to:  purchasing at neofast dot net
Fast Internet, NO WIRES!
-







- Original Message - 





From: JohnnyO






To: 'WISPA General
List' 





Sent: Thursday, May 25,
2006 10:42 AM





Subject: RE: [WISPA] SR5s
and 36miles - INPUT NEEDED





 





Mike - what is the actual output of the
SR5s you are seeing ? Or anyone else have exact figures - Should I be running
my calculations using 21dbm or 26dbm as advertised ?





 





JohnnyO





-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Mike Varner
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 10:04
AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] SR5s and
36miles - INPUT NEEDED



It may be difficult to provide a mission critical link with
2-footers; but then again I am using CM-9's on a 17-mile link.  I
know this doesn't help you; but I just recently replaced my PacWireless 2ft
dishes with 2ft dual-polarity Radiowaves dishes and gained 4dB on both
ends.  Signal level is around -62dB.





 





Mike







- Original Message - 





From: JohnnyO






To: WISPA General List






Sent: Thursday, May 25,
2006 9:24 AM





Subject: [WISPA] SR5s and
36miles - INPUT NEEDED





 



I've
run the path calcs with Radio Mobile and I should see low -70s using the SR5s
in Mikrotik and 2ft dishes at 36miles.

My
question is - how many people out there have links 35+ miles with SR5s / Mikrotik
and 2ft Panels or dishes ? I have a link I need to have up as mission critical
for a company prior to Saturday and all I have on-hand is 2ft PacWireless
Dishes……….

Regards,


JohnnyO


 







-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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











-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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












--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.7.1/347 - Release Date: 05/24/2006
 

  

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.7.1/347 - Release Date: 05/24/2006
 
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] SR5s and 36miles - INPUT NEEDED

[Mike Varner]

Title: Message



Actual output on the SR5s I tested with were about 
20-21dB.  I do not have any SR5s in a production environment at this time, 
only the CM9.  Most of my ptp links are actually Link10; but we have 
started to do more testing of MT links for low volume repeaters.
 
Mike

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  JohnnyO 
  To: 'WISPA General List' 
  Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 12:42 
  PM
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] SR5s and 36miles - 
  INPUT NEEDED
  
  Mike 
  - what is the actual output of the SR5s you are seeing ? Or anyone else have 
  exact figures - Should I be running my calculations using 21dbm or 26dbm as 
  advertised ?
   
  JohnnyO
  

-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike 
VarnerSent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 10:04 AMTo: WISPA 
General ListSubject: Re: [WISPA] SR5s and 36miles - INPUT 
NEEDED
It may be difficult to provide a mission 
critical link with 2-footers; but then again I am using CM-9's on a 
17-mile link.  I know this doesn't help you; but I just recently 
replaced my PacWireless 2ft dishes with 2ft dual-polarity Radiowaves dishes 
and gained 4dB on both ends.  Signal level is around 
-62dB.
 
Mike

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  JohnnyO 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:24 
  AM
  Subject: [WISPA] SR5s and 36miles - 
  INPUT NEEDED
  
  I've run the path calcs with Radio Mobile and I 
  should see low -70s using the SR5s in Mikrotik and 2ft dishes at 
  36miles.
  My question is - how many people out there have 
  links 35+ miles with SR5s / Mikrotik and 2ft Panels or dishes ? I have a 
  link I need to have up as mission critical for a company prior to Saturday 
  and all I have on-hand is 2ft PacWireless Dishes……….
  Regards, 
  JohnnyO 
  
  

  -- 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.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/

[WISPA] Spare Dragonwave ODU Modem available ?

[Gino A. Villarini]

Title: Spare Dragonwave ODU Modem available ?






Hey

My Dragonwave Airpair 100 ODU Modem is having issues talking to the radio, anyone has a spare available for sale, lease,lend, anything ?

Gino A. Villarini

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.

tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145




-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] What do you think?

[Jeff Broadwick]

Sorry for the cross post...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/internet/05/25/the.web.toll/index.html



Coming soon: The Web toll
New laws may transform cyberspace and the way you surf it

By Tim Folger
Popular Science

(PopSci.comexternal link) -- What if the Internet were like cable television,
with Web sites grouped like channels into either basic or premium offerings?
What if a few big companies decided which sites loaded quickly and which ones
slowly, or not at all, on your computer?

Welcome to the brave new Web, brought to you by Verizon, Bell South, AT&T and
the other telecommunications giants (including PopSci and CNN.com's parent
company, Time Warner) that are now lobbying Congress to block laws that would
prevent a two-tiered Internet, with a fast lane for Web sites able to afford it
and a slow lane for everyone else.

Specifically, such companies want to charge Web sites for the speedy delivery of
streaming video, television, movies and other high-bandwidth data to their
customers. If they get their way (Congress may vote on the matter before the
year is out), the days of wide-open cyberspace are numbered.

As things stand now, the telecoms provide the lines -- copper, cable or
fiber-optic -- and the other hardware that connects Web sites to consumers.

But they don't influence, or profit from, the content that flows to you from,
say, cinemanow.com; they simply supply the pipelines. In effect, they are
impartial middlemen, leaving you free to browse the entire Internet without
worrying about connection speeds to your favorite sites.

That looks set to change. In April a House subcommittee rejected a measure by
Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts (D) that would have prevented telecoms from
charging Web sites extra fees based on bandwidth usage.

The telecom industry sees such remuneration as fair compensation for the
substantial cost of maintaining and upgrading the infrastructure that makes
high-bandwidth services, such as streaming video, possible.

Christopher Yoo, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School, argues that
consumers should be willing to pay for faster delivery of content on the
Internet, just as many FedEx customers willingly shell out extra for overnight
delivery. "A regulatory approach that allows companies to pursue a strategy like
FedEx's makes sense," he says.

On a technical level, creating this so-called Internet fast lane is easy. In the
current system, network devices called differentiated service routers prioritize
data, assigning more bandwidth to, for example, an Internet telephone call or
streaming video than to an e-mail message.

With a tiered Internet, such routing technology could be used preferentially to
deliver either the telecoms' own services or those of companies who had paid the
requisite fees.

What does this mean for the rest of us? A stealth Web tax, for one thing.

"Google and Amazon and Yahoo are not going to slice those payments out of their
profit margins and eat them," says Ben Scott, policy director for Free Press, a
nonprofit group that monitors media-related legislation. "They're going to pass
them on to the consumer. So I'll end up paying twice. I'm going to pay my $29.99
a month for access, and then I'm going to pay higher prices for consumer goods
all across the economy because these Internet companies will charge more for
online advertising."

Worse still, Scott argues, the plan stands to sour your Web experience. If, for
instance, your favorite blogger refused to ante up, her pages would load more
slowly on your computer than would content from Web sites that had paid the
fees.

Which brings up another sticking point: A tiered system would give established
companies with deep pockets a huge competitive edge over cash-strapped start-ups
consigned to slow lanes.

"We have to remember that some of the companies that we now consider to be
titans of the Internet started literally as guys in a garage," Scott
says."That's the beauty and the brilliance of the Internet, yet we're cavalierly
talking about tossing it out the window."

Jeffrey Broadwick, Sales Manager
ImageStream Internet Solutions
"Routers for the Real World!"
800-813-5123 x106  (USA)
+1 574-935-8484 x106   (Int'l)
+1 574-935-8488(Fax) 
www.imagestream.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] SR5s and 36miles - INPUT NEEDED

[Mark Koskenmaki]

Title: Message



Johnny, I talked to someone who has done extensive 
testing with Ubiquiti's cards,  and from that conversation, I would use 
about 19 - 20 dbm as the number to go by.
 
Apparently, there's some variability as production 
has gone on, not all are the same, it seems.
 
But, if you use those numbers, I believe your 
answers will be AT LEAST that good or better, no matter what. 
 
Mark
 
 
 
North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061personal correspondence 
to:  mark at neofast dot netsales inquiries to:  purchasing at 
neofast dot netFast Internet, NO 
WIRES!-

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  JohnnyO 
  To: 'WISPA General List' 
  Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 10:42 
  AM
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] SR5s and 36miles - 
  INPUT NEEDED
  
  Mike 
  - what is the actual output of the SR5s you are seeing ? Or anyone else have 
  exact figures - Should I be running my calculations using 21dbm or 26dbm as 
  advertised ?
   
  JohnnyO
  

-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike 
VarnerSent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 10:04 AMTo: WISPA 
General ListSubject: Re: [WISPA] SR5s and 36miles - INPUT 
NEEDED
It may be difficult to provide a mission 
critical link with 2-footers; but then again I am using CM-9's on a 
17-mile link.  I know this doesn't help you; but I just recently 
replaced my PacWireless 2ft dishes with 2ft dual-polarity Radiowaves dishes 
and gained 4dB on both ends.  Signal level is around 
-62dB.
 
Mike

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  JohnnyO 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:24 
  AM
  Subject: [WISPA] SR5s and 36miles - 
  INPUT NEEDED
  
  I've run the path calcs with Radio Mobile and I 
  should see low -70s using the SR5s in Mikrotik and 2ft dishes at 
  36miles.
  My question is - how many people out there have 
  links 35+ miles with SR5s / Mikrotik and 2ft Panels or dishes ? I have a 
  link I need to have up as mission critical for a company prior to Saturday 
  and all I have on-hand is 2ft PacWireless Dishes……….
  Regards, 
  JohnnyO 
  
  

  -- 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.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] SR5s and 36miles - INPUT NEEDED

[JohnnyO]

Title: Message



Mike - 
what is the actual output of the SR5s you are seeing ? Or anyone else have exact 
figures - Should I be running my calculations using 21dbm or 26dbm as advertised 
?
 
JohnnyO

  
  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
  Mike VarnerSent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 10:04 AMTo: 
  WISPA General ListSubject: Re: [WISPA] SR5s and 36miles - INPUT 
  NEEDED
  It may be difficult to provide a mission critical 
  link with 2-footers; but then again I am using CM-9's on a 17-mile 
  link.  I know this doesn't help you; but I just recently replaced my 
  PacWireless 2ft dishes with 2ft dual-polarity Radiowaves dishes and gained 4dB 
  on both ends.  Signal level is around -62dB.
   
  Mike
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
JohnnyO 
To: WISPA General List 
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:24 
AM
Subject: [WISPA] SR5s and 36miles - 
INPUT NEEDED

I've run the path calcs with Radio Mobile and I 
should see low -70s using the SR5s in Mikrotik and 2ft dishes at 
36miles.
My question is - how many people out there have 
links 35+ miles with SR5s / Mikrotik and 2ft Panels or dishes ? I have a 
link I need to have up as mission critical for a company prior to Saturday 
and all I have on-hand is 2ft PacWireless Dishes……….
Regards, 
JohnnyO 



-- 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] [Fwd: [isp-clec] Treasury disconnects tax on long-distance calls - with refunds]

[George Rogato]

George Rogato wrote:
This was posted by Frank Muto to the isp-clec list and should be of 
interest to many of the isps on this list.
Basicly it says that the tax on long distance was illegal to collect and 
there is a refund due you.

George

Credit goes to Frank Muto



One thought that comes to mind. how much tax did we as dial up isp's pay 
on our trunks?

--
George Rogato

Welcome to WISPA

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

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

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

[WISPA] [Fwd: [isp-clec] Treasury disconnects tax on long-distance calls - with refunds]

[George Rogato]

This was posted by Frank Muto to the isp-clec list and should be of 
interest to many of the isps on this list.
Basicly it says that the tax on long distance was illegal to collect and 
there is a refund due you.

George

Credit goes to Frank Muto

--
George Rogato

Welcome to WISPA

www.wispa.org

 Original Message 
Subject: [isp-clec] Treasury disconnects tax on long-distance calls - 
with refunds

Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 11:47:25 -0400
From: Frank Muto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: isp-clec@isp-clec.com
To: isp-clec@isp-clec.com

Treasury disconnects tax on long-distance calls

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - The brief Spanish-American War ended more than a
century ago, but not the federal tax assessed to fund the victory.
Until now.

On Thursday, the U.S. Treasury said it would stop collecting the 3% federal
excise tax on long-distance calls, a fee originally assessed in 1898. The
government also said it will issue refunds requested by consumers and
businesses that paid the fee over the past three years. Taxpayers will be
able to request refunds when they file 2006 tax returns in early 2007.

The Treasury also said the Justice Department would cease litigation in
support of the tax after a handful of federal appeals courts ruled the fee
illegal in decisions rendered within the past year. The most recent loss in
federal court occurred earlier this month.

"The Federal Appeals courts have spoken across the board," Treasury
Secretary John Snow said in a statement. "It's time to 'disconnect' this 
tax

and put it on the permanent 'do not call' list."

The tax, which generates more than $6 billion annually, has survived
repeated efforts to eliminate it, most recently in 2000, when President 
Bill
Clinton vetoed a larger bill that included a repeal of the excise fee. 
Bills

aimed at ending the tax have circulated every year since.

For decades, long-distance companies such as AT&T Inc. have been 
required to

collect the excise fee from customers and pass it on to the federal
government. Yet some large corporations such as Hewlett Packard 
successfully

sued to get rid of the tax, claiming it was illegal. Others have won large
refunds from the IRS.
The excise tax works out to $1.50 per every $50 in long-distance calls, not
a particularly large sum for consumers. Yet for a business that spends, 
say,

$10,000 a month on long-distance calls, the tax would equal $300 a month or
$3,600 a year.

If the tax remained in place over the next decade, it would have generated
about $67 billion for the federal coffers, a congressional panel estimates.
Altogether, the excise has raised more than $300 billion in its entire
existence, the Congressional Research Service found.

The excise fee was originally established in 1898 on long distance because
phones were considered a luxury and only the wealthiest Americans could
afford service. These days, the tax affects all consumers directly or
indirectly, no matter what their annual income. In announcing his decision,
Treasury Secretary Snow also called on Congress to eliminate federal taxes
on local phone calls. That tax is separate from the long-distance fee.


Frank Muto
Co-founder -  Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA
Telecom Summit Ad Hoc Committee
http://gigabytemarch.blog.com/ www.wbia.us




_  The ISP-CLEC Discussion List  _
To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-clec/archives/
To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at:
Jupitermedia Corp.
Attn: Discussion List Management
475 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016

Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.

Copyright 2005 Jupitermedia Corporation All Rights Reserved.

--
George Rogato

Welcome to WISPA

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

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

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

Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

[Tom DeReggi]

3.5Ghz does,


I find that hard to believe.  2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely on 
900Mhz.


What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task?

With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP or 
mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed.


Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US.

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


- Original Message - 
From: "jeffrey thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:02 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment



The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed service
to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors.

5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors

3.5Ghz does, to "portable" devices similar to the equipment used by
clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works indoors
to about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO.

When you can deliver a zero truck roll model with 90% or above
availablity, is when operators by the truckload will deploy equipment.
At that point, you will see deployments in the thousands, like the ones
in mexico of 750,000 homes serviced.

-

Jeff



On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:20:23 -0400, "Tom DeReggi"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

How do you figure?
You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that?

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


- Original Message - 
From: "Jeffrey Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


> Frankly,
>
> The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the 
> industry

> to
> really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found 
> is
> that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will be 
> small
> and limited deployments of wisp size and not many large scale 
> deployments

> outside of 2.5ghz or 700 mhz operators.
>
> -
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
> On 5/24/06 6:14 AM, "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their Form
>> 477s
>> also
>>
>> The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards
>> "flaunting
>> the rules" -- namely the fact that you are just reinforcing the ILEC
>> argument that unlicensed spectrum just creates a bunch of "cowboys" 
>> that

>> can't be taken seriously
>>
>> Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink 
>> flamingo

>> suit when he represents the industry in DC
>>
>> -Charles
>>
>> ---
>> CWLab
>> Technology Architects
>> http://www.cwlab.com
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>> On

>> Behalf Of jeffrey thomas
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:37 PM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
>>
>>
>> In the larger scale of things- when you compare this to a carrier
>> deployment
>> which would deliver thousands of CPE's service, this is a test. I know 
>> of
>> one company that has recieved 28 STA's for 14 markets, for over 2000 
>> CPE.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> On Tue, 23 May 2006 21:33:33 -0400, "Gino A. Villarini"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>>> Do you really think towerstream need 150 field units or cpes to 
>>> "test"

>>> a single base station?
>>>
>>> Gino A. Villarini
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
>>> tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On Behalf Of Jack Unger
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:07 PM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
>>>
>>> Gino,
>>>
>>> Is Towerstream doing this - using 3650 to deliver commercial service?
>>>
>>> jack
>>>
>>>
>>> Gino A. Villarini wrote:
>>>
 Towerstream anyone ?

 Gino A. Villarini
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 On Behalf Of Jack Unger
 Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 6:56 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

 Jeffrey,

 I have to question the "judgement ability" (or the lack of it) of
 anyone
 who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a licensed
 "experimental" system and using it for a commercial, 
 revenue-generating

 purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO):

 1. Someone with no business sense
 2. Someone with no appreciation of (or experience with) the
 enforcement
 powers of the FCC
 3. Someone who will likely turn out to be their own worst enemy
 4. NOT someone who I could rely upon to provide me r

RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

[Patrick Leary]

For me, the statement old saying that comes to mind is, "the definition of
character is what one does when no one else is looking."

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
-Original Message-
From: jeffrey thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 2:59 PM
To: WISPA General List; 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Patrick,

It doesnt change the fact that many have launched "limited" deployments
as a "test" but still charged for the access service, banking on the
fact that the FCC has set the band aside for unlicensed anyways, and
that the chance of the FCC cracking down on them is very low. 

Im not saying this is right, but reality is such that they will be
evenutally amending the rules and the gear according to my sources that
is available today will be compliant. *shrug*

-

Jeff

On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:37:11 -0700, "Patrick Leary"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any
> commercial services using 3650MHz.
> 
> - Patrick
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
> 
> Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be "breaking the
> law" w/ a 3650 deployment
> 
> 
> ---
> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
> Cc: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM
> Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band - 
> Clarifications
> 
> 
> Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising
> turn-key
> 3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding interference in
> congested
> license-exempt ISM/UNII bands.  Although the FCC issued adopted rules
> back
> in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband in
> the
> 3.65 GHz band, a "minor" contention-based requirement has delayed the
> deployment of wireless broadband services in this band as equipment
> manufacturers currently work behind the scenes to iron out the details. 
> As
> things currently stand, deploying a 3.65 GHz system today falls under
> Subpart 5: Experimental Radio Service of the FCC Rules.
> 
> Infrastructure Investment & Experimentation under Part 5 needs to be done
> strictly from a "curiosity" perspective rather than one of "commercial
> network expansion."  Part 5 permits experimentation in scientific or
> technical operations directly related to the use of radio waves. The
> rules
> provide the opportunity to experiment with new techniques or new services
> prior to submitting proposals to the FCC to change its rules.
> 
> Some useful excerpts regarding Experimental Licensing
> 
> 47CFR5.3: Scope of Service
> 
> Stations operating in the Experimental Radio Service will be permitted to
> conduct the following type of operations:
> (a)Experimentations in scientific or technical radio research
> (b)   Experimentations under contractual agreement with the United States
> Government, or for export purposes.
> (c)Communications essential to a research project.
> (d)   Technical demonstrations of equipment or techniques.
> (e)Field strength surveys by persons not eligible for authorization
> in
> any other service.
> (f) Demonstration of equipment to prospective purchasers by persons
> engaged in the business of selling radio equipment.
> (g)Testing of equipment in connection with production or regulatory
> approval of such equipment.
> (h)Development of radio technique, equipment or engineering data not
> related to an existing or proposed service, including field or factory
> testing or calibration of equipment.
> (i)  Development of radio technique, equipment, operational data or
> engineering data related to an existing or proposed radio service.
> (j) Limited market studies.
> (k)   Types of experiments that are not specifically covered under
> paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section will be considered upon
> demonstration of need
> 
> 47CFR5.51: Eligibility of License
> 
> (a)Authorizations for stations in the Experimental Radio Service will
> be
> issued only to persons qualified to conduct experimentation utilizing
> radio
> waves for scientific or technical operation data directly related to a
> use
> of radio not provided by existing rules; or for communications in
> connection
> with research projects when existing communications facilities are
> inadequate.
> 
> 47CFR5.63: Supplementary Statements
> 
> (a)Each applicant for an authorization in the Experimental Radio
> Service
> must enclose with the application a narrative statement describing in
> detail
> the program of research and experimentation proposed, the specific
> objectives sought to be accomplished; and how the program of
> experimentation
> has a reasonable promise of contribution to the development, extension,
> or
> expansion

RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment, WIMAX?

[Patrick Leary]

No, I do not think so. The 5.47-5.725GHz issue is resolved. It is only a
matter of the FCC setting certification criteria. 3650MHz is still
unresolved, though the commission has begun work on it again. Once
resolution occurs, then they have to go through the steps of creating the
registration process for the light licensing and certification process. This
will not complete for sure this year.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Gino A. Villarini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 5:20 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment, WIMAX?

So Patrick, can we expect 3.65 be available at the same time as 5.4 ...
q3-q4 ?

Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 12:18 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment, WIMAX?

That is part of the reconsideration process. The FCC (per multiple talks
with the folks that wrote the rule) did not intent to exclude WiMAX, 802.16,
or 802.11 products from use in 3650MHz. They used the contention language
not in a specific way, but to describe in general terms what they were
looking for out of equipment in the band. In other words, they do not have
an actual contention requirement in the rules itself.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: George Rogato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 3:24 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment, WIMAX?

Will the 3650 be  WIMAX'able. I understand that the 3650 is supposed to 
be contention based and WIMAX is not contention based.

Any updates?



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
viruses.








 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
viruses.






-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
viruses.








 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
viruses.




-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] SR5s and 36miles - INPUT NEEDED

[Mike Varner]

Title: SR5s and 36miles - INPUT NEEDED



It may be difficult to provide a mission critical 
link with 2-footers; but then again I am using CM-9's on a 17-mile 
link.  I know this doesn't help you; but I just recently replaced my 
PacWireless 2ft dishes with 2ft dual-polarity Radiowaves dishes and gained 4dB 
on both ends.  Signal level is around -62dB.
 
Mike

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  JohnnyO 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:24 
AM
  Subject: [WISPA] SR5s and 36miles - INPUT 
  NEEDED
  
  I've run the path calcs with Radio Mobile and I 
  should see low -70s using the SR5s in Mikrotik and 2ft dishes at 
  36miles.
  My question is - how many people out there have 
  links 35+ miles with SR5s / Mikrotik and 2ft Panels or dishes ? I have a link 
  I need to have up as mission critical for a company prior to Saturday and all 
  I have on-hand is 2ft PacWireless Dishes……….
  Regards, 
  JohnnyO 
  
  

  -- 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/

[WISPA] SR5s and 36miles - INPUT NEEDED

[JohnnyO]

Title: SR5s and 36miles - INPUT NEEDED






I've run the path calcs with Radio Mobile and I should see low -70s using the SR5s in Mikrotik and 2ft dishes at 36miles.

My question is - how many people out there have links 35+ miles with SR5s / Mikrotik and 2ft Panels or dishes ? I have a link I need to have up as mission critical for a company prior to Saturday and all I have on-hand is 2ft PacWireless Dishes……….

Regards,


JohnnyO




-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

[jeffrey thomas]

The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed service
to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors.

5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors

3.5Ghz does, to "portable" devices similar to the equipment used by
clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works indoors
to about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO. 

When you can deliver a zero truck roll model with 90% or above
availablity, is when operators by the truckload will deploy equipment.
At that point, you will see deployments in the thousands, like the ones
in mexico of 750,000 homes serviced.

-

Jeff



On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:20:23 -0400, "Tom DeReggi"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> How do you figure?
> You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that?
> 
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Jeffrey Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
> 
> 
> > Frankly,
> >
> > The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the industry 
> > to
> > really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found is
> > that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will be small
> > and limited deployments of wisp size and not many large scale deployments
> > outside of 2.5ghz or 700 mhz operators.
> >
> > -
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 5/24/06 6:14 AM, "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their Form 
> >> 477s
> >> also
> >>
> >> The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards 
> >> "flaunting
> >> the rules" -- namely the fact that you are just reinforcing the ILEC
> >> argument that unlicensed spectrum just creates a bunch of "cowboys" that
> >> can't be taken seriously
> >>
> >> Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink flamingo
> >> suit when he represents the industry in DC
> >>
> >> -Charles
> >>
> >> ---
> >> CWLab
> >> Technology Architects
> >> http://www.cwlab.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> >> Behalf Of jeffrey thomas
> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:37 PM
> >> To: WISPA General List
> >> Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
> >>
> >>
> >> In the larger scale of things- when you compare this to a carrier 
> >> deployment
> >> which would deliver thousands of CPE's service, this is a test. I know of
> >> one company that has recieved 28 STA's for 14 markets, for over 2000 CPE.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -
> >>
> >> Jeff
> >>
> >> On Tue, 23 May 2006 21:33:33 -0400, "Gino A. Villarini" 
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> said:
> >>> Do you really think towerstream need 150 field units or cpes to "test"
> >>> a single base station?
> >>>
> >>> Gino A. Villarini
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
> >>> tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
> >>>
> >>> -Original Message-
> >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>> On Behalf Of Jack Unger
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:07 PM
> >>> To: WISPA General List
> >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
> >>>
> >>> Gino,
> >>>
> >>> Is Towerstream doing this - using 3650 to deliver commercial service?
> >>>
> >>> jack
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Gino A. Villarini wrote:
> >>>
>  Towerstream anyone ?
> 
>  Gino A. Villarini
>  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
>  tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
>  -Original Message-
>  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  On Behalf Of Jack Unger
>  Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 6:56 PM
>  To: WISPA General List
>  Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
> 
>  Jeffrey,
> 
>  I have to question the "judgement ability" (or the lack of it) of
>  anyone
>  who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a licensed
>  "experimental" system and using it for a commercial, revenue-generating
>  purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO):
> 
>  1. Someone with no business sense
>  2. Someone with no appreciation of (or experience with) the
>  enforcement
>  powers of the FCC
>  3. Someone who will likely turn out to be their own worst enemy
>  4. NOT someone who I could rely upon to provide me reliable, long-term
>  WISP service.
> jack
> 
> 
> 
>  jeffrey thomas wrote:
> 
> 
> > Patrick,
> >
> > It doesnt change the fact that many have launched "limited"
> > deployments as a "test" but still charged for the access service,
> > banking on the fact that the FCC has set the band aside for
> > unlicensed an