date:20060526

We are looking for a fixed wireless operator in the Dallas metro area 
that primarily serves business customers that would be interested in a 
partner or an acquisition. Contact me offlist if you are interested.


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

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

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

[WISPA] St Cloud, FL

2006-05-26 Thread Peter R.

http://www.wispcentric.com/content/view/4404/87/

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/osceola/orl-wifi2006may20,0,4256542.story?coll=orl-news-headlines-osceola

May 20, 2006

*St. Cloud, Florida, is probably unfairly receiving close scrutiny on
its free, city-wide network paid with municipal funds
*:
The city's mayor explained some months ago that he sees part of the
point of this kind of network is keeping the $700+ per year spent on
average by broadband users from leaving the state. It's an interesting
article. But the network has been perhaps overcovered as the first
municipally run free network of this scale; others that offer free
service are substantially smaller or offer it only over a downtown or
limited area. The latest report suggests $464K above the $2.6m spent to
cover the city will be required to achieve close to 100-percent coverage.

Half the new expense was due to a mistake in timing. Developers will
start paying a $118.46 per new house fee Dec. 1, but 14 developments
weren't factored into the budgeting for the network. Covering these
neighborhoods will come out of the city's pocket, although it's possible
developers will voluntarily contribute to the effort, since they're
passing this along in some form to buyers. (Yes, it's a free network,
but that's how "free" can work.) Three neighborhoods were annexed since
budgeting happened, and about 20 percent of this new expense covers
service for them.

Another chunk, $185k, is for 35 APs--hey, we just found out these Tropos
nodes cost $5,000 each to buy and install!--to fill in poorly covered
areas, according to this newspaper story. The coverage level is now
estimated at 82 percent, and expected to top 90 percent soon, which is
the contracted amount. One council member thought the contracted
coverage was 100 percent.

Given that 100 percent is impossible for any wireless technology and
most wired technologies without excessive expense, it's a bad number to
shoot for. That last one percent could cost more than the most expensive
20 percent of the network. (That last 0.001 percent--a crank in an
underground concrete bunker--is the killer.) HP, which is building the
networks, suggests that anyone with a problem receiving a signal by the
end of June should the consider a PepLink bridge or a higher-gain antenna.

St. Cloud isn't unique in having a free service city-wide in a larger
town, just for the city paying for it. Some smaller towns offer free
Wi-Fi and I would like to guess that between 500 and 1,000 cities and
towns now have some public or private limited or unlimited free Wi-Fi in
at least one popular place.

But the only other cities that have free service on a metro scale are
those operated by MetroFi, which went free several months ago. (That's
free with ads; there's a fee-based, no-ads version, too.) MetroFi hasn't
received the same kind of scrutiny and critique as St. Cloud because
their first cities were unwired without municipal involvement. With the
Portland, Ore., contract in hand, MetroFi might expect the same kind of
close observation as the St. Cloud network. But given that MetroFi isn't
required to disclose finances and runs its own budget, there shouldn't
be any cost carping about their deployment in Portland.

*Read more at:* http://wifinetnews.com/archives/006590.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

W/out a license, 3.6 is going to work just as *bad* 

You really need 700 (or a <1 GHz band) to really get mobility / portability
in an unlicensed / uncoordinated environment

-Charles

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com 



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of jeffrey thomas
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 3:02 AM
To: WISPA General List
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. S

Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

But, 3.65 isn't going to be unlicensed; it is going to be a shared 
license program. IMHO, that means that you will only have to contend 
with other operators as opposed to every consumer with a laptop.


-Matt

Charles Wu wrote:

W/out a license, 3.6 is going to work just as *bad* 


You really need 700 (or a <1 GHz band) to really get mobility / portability
in an unlicensed / uncoordinated environment

-Charles

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com 




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of jeffrey thomas
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 3:02 AM
To: WISPA General List
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 reliable,
   


long-term
 


WISP service.
  jack



jeffrey thomas wrote:


   


Patrick,

It doesnt change the fact that many have launched "limit

RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

To say the least -- a highly upsetting (to many operators) isse about WiMAX
is the fact that not all WiMAX is created equal...

Sure, WiMAX talks about QoS, ARQ, encryption, scheduled MACs, etc -- but is
it required for base certification today?

Hehe

-Charles

P.S. -- BREAKING NEWS FOR WISP types -- I saw a WORKING DEMO of a MINI-PCI
WiMAX card for 3.5

Some interesting CPE makers (they all use this mini-pci WiMAX card inside)

http://www.ente.com.pl/default.aspx?docId=2555&mId1=2509

http://www.winetworks.com/products_win2000.html

"The Book" CPE (IMO - quite nifty looking)
http://www.quadmaxsystems.se/products.php

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 10:00 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

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/

--
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

Hi Patrick,

But all the "fancy schmancy" technology you implement won't do @#$@ unless
3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the area
(including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats you for
breakfast, lunch & dinner =(

-Charles

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com 



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
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.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>

RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

A shared license (w/ zero barriers to entry, etc) w/out a very strict
coordination scheme (which will never be implemented by the FCC due to the
fact that it's A LOT of work to build, maintain and administer) is still
basically an unlicensed system

Say there are 10 operators in a market

You deploy your fancy schmancy 1024-FFT
OFDM/mimo/beam-forming/space-coded/blah blah system w/ it's superior
scheduled WiMAX MAC

The other 9 of em deploy FM modulated FSK based systems across town

What do you think is going to happen?

-Charles


---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com 



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:17 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


But, 3.65 isn't going to be unlicensed; it is going to be a shared 
license program. IMHO, that means that you will only have to contend 
with other operators as opposed to every consumer with a laptop.

-Matt

Charles Wu wrote:

>W/out a license, 3.6 is going to work just as *bad*
>
>You really need 700 (or a <1 GHz band) to really get mobility / 
>portability in an unlicensed / uncoordinated environment
>
>-Charles
>
>---
>CWLab
>Technology Architects
>http://www.cwlab.com
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
>Behalf Of jeffrey thomas
>Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 3:02 AM
>To: WISPA General List
>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:[EMA

Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


Charles Wu wrote:


What do you think is going to happen?

 

Exactly the same thing that we have with 5.8Ghz, but without all the 
non-operators. While that isn't the same as mutually exclusive spectrum, 
it is a big step forward for all of us successful companies using 5.8Ghz.


-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] 3650 equipment

Yes -- but WHAT are you deploying in 5.8?

The most commonly used 5.8 systems out there are EXTREMELY BASIC as compared
to what stuff out there can do -- but that is required, since interference
robustness / reliability is the #1 consideration in license-exempt band
operation

There are systems out there (Navini for instance) that do some really cool
things, but are basically useless in today's license-exempt frequencies b/c
of interference

All those "cool" things don't mean @[EMAIL PROTECTED] if you've got a -70 / -80 
noise
floor

-Charles

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com 



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 1:03 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


Charles Wu wrote:

>What do you think is going to happen?
>
>  
>
Exactly the same thing that we have with 5.8Ghz, but without all the 
non-operators. While that isn't the same as mutually exclusive spectrum, 
it is a big step forward for all of us successful companies using 5.8Ghz.

-Matt
-- 
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] (no subject)

2006-05-26 Thread Jeff Broadwick

Hi All,

If anyone is interested in attending Globalcomm (Chicago, June 4th-7th), here is
a discount coupon good for a free floor pass(es) or $150 off of a complete
registration:

http://www.imagestream.com/Globalcomm2006.PDF

Hope to see you there!

Jeff

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] 3650 equipment

Certification is a multi stage process. The first set of certs is purely
political, you are right. Wave 1 is merely an equipment level handshake. It
is not until Wave 2 testing that the critical features needed by operators
will be tested. Our solution is already beyond that (we have over 50 full
commercial deployments with BreezeMAX) so we had initially planned to go
straight to Wave 2. But Wave 1 is taking so long and the market has the
mistaken impression that if you do not have Wave 1 complete than you are
behind. So we will get our Wave 1 stamp.

It is important to recognize that just having Wave 1 means nothing in the
long or even mid term, since anyone with a Wave 1 cert will have to go back
and get a Wave 2. Each later Wave is higher in value and represents a more
complex system. Many small vendors will not make it beyond Wave 2.

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

-Original Message-
From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

To say the least -- a highly upsetting (to many operators) isse about WiMAX
is the fact that not all WiMAX is created equal...

Sure, WiMAX talks about QoS, ARQ, encryption, scheduled MACs, etc -- but is
it required for base certification today?

Hehe

-Charles

P.S. -- BREAKING NEWS FOR WISP types -- I saw a WORKING DEMO of a MINI-PCI
WiMAX card for 3.5

Some interesting CPE makers (they all use this mini-pci WiMAX card inside)

http://www.ente.com.pl/default.aspx?docId=2555&mId1=2509

http://www.winetworks.com/products_win2000.html

"The Book" CPE (IMO - quite nifty looking)
http://www.quadmaxsystems.se/products.php

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 10:00 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

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/

-- 
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.
**

RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

You make the mistake of assuming that I am talking about an unlicensed 3.65
product Charles. We would not likely build a UL version of all that. I am in
complete agreement with you on 3.650 in terms of the end reality and utility
of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I
support essentially splitting the band.

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

-Original Message-
From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Hi Patrick,

But all the "fancy schmancy" technology you implement won't do @#$@ unless
3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the area
(including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats you for
breakfast, lunch & dinner =(

-Charles

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com 



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
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 Archi

Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


Splitting up the band will just make it useless and interference free.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:


You make the mistake of assuming that I am talking about an unlicensed 3.65
product Charles. We would not likely build a UL version of all that. I am in
complete agreement with you on 3.650 in terms of the end reality and utility
of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I
support essentially splitting the band.

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

-Original Message-
From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM

To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Hi Patrick,

But all the "fancy schmancy" technology you implement won't do @#$@ unless
3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the area
(including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats you for
breakfast, lunch & dinner =(

-Charles

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com 




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
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: T

RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Respectfully, I do not agree. Look how much is done in UL with just 26MHz in
900MHz, most of which is not useable due to the noise of high power primary
users and consumer devices. Also, rural customers and operators should have
the ability to achieve high QoS services and not merely best effort.
Splitting the band leaves some room for both types of services.

I would also prefer the UL part of the split to be broken up into something
like 5MHz channels so gear is not sold into the market that will use the
entire swath of band from one radio UNLESS it is a P2P radio, in which case
the entire range should be usable.

Patrick 

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:58 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Splitting up the band will just make it useless and interference free.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:

>You make the mistake of assuming that I am talking about an unlicensed 3.65
>product Charles. We would not likely build a UL version of all that. I am
in
>complete agreement with you on 3.650 in terms of the end reality and
utility
>of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I
>support essentially splitting the band.
>
>Patrick Leary
>AVP Marketing
>Alvarion, Inc.
>o: 650.314.2628
>c: 760.580.0080
>Vonage: 650.641.1243
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
>
>Hi Patrick,
>
>But all the "fancy schmancy" technology you implement won't do @#$@ unless
>3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the area
>(including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats you for
>breakfast, lunch & dinner =(
>
>-Charles
>
>---
>CWLab
>Technology Architects
>http://www.cwlab.com 
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>Behalf Of Patrick Leary
>Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>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

Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

The radios that exist for 900Mhz today barely qualify from a delivered 
bandwidth perspective. We hardly ever lead with a 1.5Mbps service, but 
sometimes are forced to sell just 1.5Mbps because we can only make the 
shot with 900Mhz. If we were limited to 5Mhz with a 3.65Ghz radio then I 
don't see why we would use them at all. 10Mhz would at least be 
interesting, but that is too much channel space for multually exclusive 
spectrum. About the only interesting thing you can do with 5Mhz is a 
WiMAX mobile service, but it would never compete with a similar service 
operating in 2.3Ghz or 2.5Ghz (not that I think a 5Mhz WiMAX mobile 
service in those bands does much to compete with 3G anyway). 
Ultimatelly, I think a 5Mhz license is only going to create "3G me too" 
services that aren't that interesting. I know all the radio manufactures 
would love that since services that target individuals sell more radios, 
but alas, I am not a radio manufacture.


-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:


Respectfully, I do not agree. Look how much is done in UL with just 26MHz in
900MHz, most of which is not useable due to the noise of high power primary
users and consumer devices. Also, rural customers and operators should have
the ability to achieve high QoS services and not merely best effort.
Splitting the band leaves some room for both types of services.

I would also prefer the UL part of the split to be broken up into something
like 5MHz channels so gear is not sold into the market that will use the
entire swath of band from one radio UNLESS it is a P2P radio, in which case
the entire range should be usable.

Patrick 


-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:58 PM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Splitting up the band will just make it useless and interference free.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:

 


You make the mistake of assuming that I am talking about an unlicensed 3.65
product Charles. We would not likely build a UL version of all that. I am
   


in
 


complete agreement with you on 3.650 in terms of the end reality and
   


utility
 


of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I
support essentially splitting the band.

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

-Original Message-
From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM

To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Hi Patrick,

But all the "fancy schmancy" technology you implement won't do @#$@ unless
3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the area
(including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats you for
breakfast, lunch & dinner =(

-Charles

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com 




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
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

RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment