RE: [WISPA] Zcomax has WIMAX?
Few things of info: - 3.5Ghz is not not license free in the, 50Mhz at 3.65 is but there are issue with using this with WiMax - WiMax doesNOT do any more at 2.4Ghz or 5Ghz then theproducts on the market today in reference to RF not protocol. - The WiMax protocol has many cool features but are based on a model where there is little or no interface. - I would not expect to see any WiMax product near pricing most WISP pay today to mid 2007 end 2008. I am sure by then there will be sub $100 CPE using the other standards whichwill have most if not all the features WiMax has in the spec. Sincerely, Tony MorellaDemarc Technology Group, A Wireless Solution ProviderOffice: 207-667-7583 Fax: 207-433-1008http://www.demarctech.com This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This communication may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the confidential or privileged nature of the communication. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender by return electronic mail and delete all copies of this communication From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jenco WirelessSent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:50 PMTo: WISPA General ListSubject: Re: [WISPA] Zcomax has WIMAX? Why is the 3.5 Wi-Max license free band not approved in the U.S. ??? -- Brad H On 6/12/06, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.zcom.com.tw/news001.htm--George Rogato Welcome to WISPAwww.wispa.orghttp://signup.wispa.org/--WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/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] WCA Anyone?
Hi all, I'm going to WCA in Washington DC later this month. Anyone else going? Matt Larsen [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] looking for a device
Charles Wu wrote: It is worth noting that you lose the benefits of routing protocols when you bridge your network The above is the number one reason against using VLANs for layer 2 transport. A second important issue to consider is management. Every device from end-to-end where you want to deliver layer 2 transport requires configuration if you use VLANs. Both of the above issues are solved with MPLS. First, MPLS rides on top of your layer 3 network giving you all the benefits of routing protocols. Second, you only need to configure the edge device on either side of a layer 2 virtual circuit. All the devices in-between --including protection paths don't require additional configuration for each virtual circuit. -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] looking for a device
We too have been looking at moving from routed to a switched Mikrotik for the core network but the unknown quantity seems to be if there are any latency or speed issues related to the move. A true switched network is faster than a routed network as the switching is done at a hardware level but in Mikrotik I believe both switching and routed is done in software. What have you seen? P. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Sovereen Sent: 13 June 2006 04:12 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] looking for a device We just completed converting our network from routed to bridged. Where each AP (we run Mikrotik) used to do its own DHCP and PPPoE to customers and speak OSPF to the network, the APs (still Mikrotik) now bridge traffic to a regional Mikrotik that handles PPPoE and DHCP for that region. We are using RSTP. In this way, people can roam from one tower to another and their DHCP lease is still good at the next tower. A region for us to 3 to 4 counties. We converted our first region about a month ago and finished the last one last weekend. We're very pleased with the results so far. Dave - Original Message - From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 9:22 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] looking for a device It is worth noting that you lose the benefits of routing protocols when you bridge your network Sure, there's always RSTP... (heh) Many larger wireless / Wifi based architecture these days seem to be favoring a layer 3 tunneling / handoff method over a bridged layer 2 network -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 5:30 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] looking for a device To clarify The term I referred to as Double VLAN is not the technically correct name (thats just what I call it), it is actually called Q in Q as stated by several in this thread. One of the reasons this is valuable is for a wholesale network. It basically allows you to create a single VLAN end to end across your network for a subscriber or reseller, and still use VLAN for your local needs to operate your network. I'll give an example of where I might use VLAN for my network need. I have a single fiber connection from the basement to the roof. On the roof I have a VLAN switch and 6 sector radios. I have a router in the basement. I could then seperate data between the different radio traffic by giving a unique VLAN to the Ethernet port that each sector radio connects to, and route between them in my basement router. I'll give an example of where I'd use a VLAN end to end for a reseller. Reseller has a connection between me and them at one point on my network. The reseller might provide the backbone and IPs. The client routes the customers traffic to a specific VLAN when entering my network. I then have that VLAN configured across my network until reaches the end user's building router that terminates the VLAN. Now what happens when the resellers customer (example 2) resides in the building (example 1)? Normally two VLANs can't exist simultaneously as teh switch wouldn;t know which ID to tag data with. Q in Q VLAN would allow one VLAN ID to reside in side of another VLAN. Its the same concept as tunnelling, except for its not. Now how does this apply to radios that support Q in Q? Depends. Use your imagination. The first problem is can the radio pass Q in Q VLAN data? Second can it tag it? Being able to tag VLAN data at the radio level can be extremely useful. First off it avoids having to configure a second device (VLAN switch) that complicates the automation of configurations. Part of the Idea is that CLECs and Governement, are all high on Security, and they do not want to have to coordinate complex IP models between their systems and the wholesalers, instead they want to be able to send traffic LAyer2 and seperate traffic so one client does not have the abilty to see the other client's traffic. Its sort of an Ethernet way of doing a Private Virtual Circuit. The only problem with VLAN is you need to have every component of you network that passes VLANs to be able to pass large packets so Full MTU can be delivered to clients. This is one of the limits to Wifi and regular switches, is many Wifi devices and all non managed switches do not pass large packets. Radio like Trango and Alvarion (with Q in Q support) have the abilty to pass large packets. The other advantage of VLAN is that when used across a PtMP design and VLAN support at CPE, it allows doing remote banwdith management based on the customers circuit ID, and having a way to distinguish and differentiate the data. Q in Q, gives the provider flexibilty on how and when they would like to use
RE: [WISPA] looking for a device
Interesting, completely opposite of what is commonly preached 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 David Sovereen Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:12 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] looking for a device We just completed converting our network from routed to bridged. Where each AP (we run Mikrotik) used to do its own DHCP and PPPoE to customers and speak OSPF to the network, the APs (still Mikrotik) now bridge traffic to a regional Mikrotik that handles PPPoE and DHCP for that region. We are using RSTP. In this way, people can roam from one tower to another and their DHCP lease is still good at the next tower. A region for us to 3 to 4 counties. We converted our first region about a month ago and finished the last one last weekend. We're very pleased with the results so far. Dave - Original Message - From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 9:22 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] looking for a device It is worth noting that you lose the benefits of routing protocols when you bridge your network Sure, there's always RSTP... (heh) Many larger wireless / Wifi based architecture these days seem to be favoring a layer 3 tunneling / handoff method over a bridged layer 2 network -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 5:30 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] looking for a device To clarify The term I referred to as Double VLAN is not the technically correct name (thats just what I call it), it is actually called Q in Q as stated by several in this thread. One of the reasons this is valuable is for a wholesale network. It basically allows you to create a single VLAN end to end across your network for a subscriber or reseller, and still use VLAN for your local needs to operate your network. I'll give an example of where I might use VLAN for my network need. I have a single fiber connection from the basement to the roof. On the roof I have a VLAN switch and 6 sector radios. I have a router in the basement. I could then seperate data between the different radio traffic by giving a unique VLAN to the Ethernet port that each sector radio connects to, and route between them in my basement router. I'll give an example of where I'd use a VLAN end to end for a reseller. Reseller has a connection between me and them at one point on my network. The reseller might provide the backbone and IPs. The client routes the customers traffic to a specific VLAN when entering my network. I then have that VLAN configured across my network until reaches the end user's building router that terminates the VLAN. Now what happens when the resellers customer (example 2) resides in the building (example 1)? Normally two VLANs can't exist simultaneously as teh switch wouldn;t know which ID to tag data with. Q in Q VLAN would allow one VLAN ID to reside in side of another VLAN. Its the same concept as tunnelling, except for its not. Now how does this apply to radios that support Q in Q? Depends. Use your imagination. The first problem is can the radio pass Q in Q VLAN data? Second can it tag it? Being able to tag VLAN data at the radio level can be extremely useful. First off it avoids having to configure a second device (VLAN switch) that complicates the automation of configurations. Part of the Idea is that CLECs and Governement, are all high on Security, and they do not want to have to coordinate complex IP models between their systems and the wholesalers, instead they want to be able to send traffic LAyer2 and seperate traffic so one client does not have the abilty to see the other client's traffic. Its sort of an Ethernet way of doing a Private Virtual Circuit. The only problem with VLAN is you need to have every component of you network that passes VLANs to be able to pass large packets so Full MTU can be delivered to clients. This is one of the limits to Wifi and regular switches, is many Wifi devices and all non managed switches do not pass large packets. Radio like Trango and Alvarion (with Q in Q support) have the abilty to pass large packets. The other advantage of VLAN is that when used across a PtMP design and VLAN support at CPE, it allows doing remote banwdith management based on the customers circuit ID, and having a way to distinguish and differentiate the data. Q in Q, gives the provider flexibilty on how and when they would like to use VLAN and in multiple ways simultaneously. Its uncertain how Q in Q will be used for sure, as VLAN does add much complexity over say a basic bridged design. Part of the benefit, is that redundancy is
Re: [WISPA] looking for a device
Paul Hendry wrote: We too have been looking at moving from routed to a switched Mikrotik for the core network but the unknown quantity seems to be if there are any latency or speed issues related to the move. A true switched network is faster than a routed network as the switching is done at a hardware level but in Mikrotik I believe both switching and routed is done in software. What have you seen? Faster in what way? Certainly, a routed network is going to beat a switched network in terms of covergence speed. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] The muni Wi-Fi poster child lied?
From Techdirt http://news.techdirt.com/news/wireless/article/6717 Putting A Little Lipstick On Muni WiFi Back in May, 2004, Municipal Wireless was still just on the drawing board, but a few towns and cities were about to lead the charge into using WiFi to meet their admirable goal of providing low-cost connectivity. At the time, I wrote about Chaska, Minnesota, a suburb of Minneapolis that was launching their citywide network. I argued in Techdirt and in USA Today that WiFi would be the wrong choice for Muni Wireless because of range (it's a LAN technology) and interference issues, among others. My opinion was contrasted by Bradley Mayer, the city IT Manager responsible for spearheading Chaska.net, who was very optimistic about the planned network. By October, we were both again quoted in a CNN.com article in which I say: I haven't seen a lot of what I would consider real successes yet [with municipal wireless]. More and more cities are announcing they're going to do [Muni WiFi], and I get concerned because I'm hearing more and more rhetoric that isn't consistent with the underlying technology. Mr. Mayer, in contrast, said, So far, customers are happy with the city's Wi-Fi start. Accepting what Mayer said as truth, myself and others had to concede that smaller towns may prove us wrong on Muni WiFi. I actually spoke with Mayer in late 2004 as part of some private research I was conducting for a telco client, and he again portrayed the Chaska WiFi network as a glowing example of how Muni WiFi works well. Flash forward to the present, and imagine how frustrating it is, then, to see Mr. Mayer admit, ex post facto, that Chaska's network was actually quite a mess. Of course, the Tribune article claims that that is all in the past, and now the network is great. Well, I'm sorry, but there is a credibility gap to address now. We were told it was great 18 months ago, but later we're told by the same person It took about a year and a half before we felt we really had a good handle on the network. And according to Mayer's' boss, The speed wasn't good, or they [subscribers] couldn't get on [the network]. Sometimes customer service was a problem. It was hard for us to staff up to meet peak times. There was an early 50% cost over-run to deploy more APs, and there has been a subsequent full upgrade to the next generation of Tropos gear. The city, not able to handle the maintenance of the network, contracted Siemens to do the task, and also has outsourced support. However good they claim things are now, it certainly looks like it was a disaster until just recently. And those are the real results from Chaska, a city that had all the advantages of manageable size, pre-existing links to the Internet backbone, ownership of the local power utility, low building height, and full utility pole access. But now, we're to believe the current network is great because they say so...again. Mr. Mayer, who parlayed his Muni WiFi deployment experience in Chaska into a better job as the WiFi deployment expert at Earthlink, is quoted in the Trib as saying there was a lot of pre-conceived notions that you could just blast [Wi-Fi signals] through walls and trees and everything. It might save a lot of money if Muni Broadband enthusiasts take a good hard look at WiFi vs. other options before deployment, instead of forging ahead on wishful thinking and pre-conceived notions. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] looking for a device
Hi Matt, Actually, our testing and real-world experience shows that convergence is faster in bridged RSTP network than it is in a routed OSPF network. We ran OSPF on our wireless network, and still do on our wired network. With default settings of a hello interval of 10 seconds and a dead router interval of 40 seconds, recovery from an outage and need to re-route, as you would expect, takes just over 40 seconds. We run with quicker settings on our network: a hello interval of 2 and a dead router interval of 12. As would be expected, recovery from an outage and need to re-route takes just over 12 seconds. Contrast that with our RSTP bridged network, where we broke a backhaul and forced traffic to route around the outage. The new route was 5 tower hops longer than the primary route, and it took about 6 seconds for traffic to move around the outage. I haven't done tests using STP, only RSTP, and my understanding is that STP is significantly slower. In that case, you may be right. Also, if you are running a routing protocol other than OSPF, especially something that has fast-reroute capabilities, you very well might do better with it than with RSTP. But in Mikrotik, OSPF and RSTP are your main options when discussing dynamic routing versus dynamic bridging, and RSTP really does converge quicker. Dave 989-837-3790 x 151 989-837-3780 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.mercury.net 129 Ashman St, Midland, MI 48640 - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 8:25 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] looking for a device Paul Hendry wrote: We too have been looking at moving from routed to a switched Mikrotik for the core network but the unknown quantity seems to be if there are any latency or speed issues related to the move. A true switched network is faster than a routed network as the switching is done at a hardware level but in Mikrotik I believe both switching and routed is done in software. What have you seen? Faster in what way? Certainly, a routed network is going to beat a switched network in terms of covergence speed. -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] How do you market your WISP
Gentlemen; I am in the final stages of design and have begun to guild my WISP. I was wondering what the most effective methods were for marketing? I was thinking of using the mail, possibly arranging a demo in a parking lot, flyers, and of course adding my company name to the lists on the internet. Lee -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] looking for a device
The delay in switching a packet at hardware is less than the delay in routing a packet at software. This is 1 of the reasons that Cisco created the GSR and why an MPLS switched network is fast than a plain routed network. I'm not too interested in convergence times as we only have very minimal outages so RSTP should suffice. How fast a packet can traverse our network on the other hand is important so that we can reliably run VoIP and other delay/jitter sensitive applications. Anyone compared a routed solution with a Mikrotik bridged solution for delay/jitter? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: 13 June 2006 13:26 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] looking for a device Paul Hendry wrote: We too have been looking at moving from routed to a switched Mikrotik for the core network but the unknown quantity seems to be if there are any latency or speed issues related to the move. A true switched network is faster than a routed network as the switching is done at a hardware level but in Mikrotik I believe both switching and routed is done in software. What have you seen? Faster in what way? Certainly, a routed network is going to beat a switched network in terms of covergence speed. -Matt -- 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: 268.8.3/362 - Release Date: 12/06/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.3/362 - Release Date: 12/06/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] How do you market your WISP
Wow, I can hardly afford to build my WISP and yours will be guilded!!! With a gold plated WISP, why would you need to advertise? :) Seriously, my WISP, and many others, has experienced steady growth with word of mouth. I have a 4'x6' sign at one tower one a fairly rural road. Other than that it is customer satisfaction. Scott Reed Owner NewWays Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration www.nwwnet.net -- Original Message --- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 09:29:22 -0600 Subject: [WISPA] How do you market your WISP Gentlemen; I am in the final stages of design and have begun to guild my WISP. I was wondering what the most effective methods were for marketing? I was thinking of using the mail, possibly arranging a demo in a parking lot, flyers, and of course adding my company name to the lists on the internet. Lee --- End of Original Message --- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Covad/Nextweb XO/Nextlink
Partners Tap LMDS For Powered-Up Wireless Ethernet /search/?query=Ethernet http://www.telecomweb.com/tnd/17142.html http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/telecomweb.com/;sz=180x150;ord=021450 Wireless broadband service provider *Nextlink Wireless Inc.*, a subsidiary of *XO Holdings Inc.*, is teaming with *Covad Communications Group Inc.* in a strategic partnership that will allow Covad to deploy higher-speed wireless Ethernet /search/?query=Ethernet services nationally using Nextlink's licensed 28 GHz-31 GHz Local Multipoint Distribution System (LMDS) spectrum. Covad's new offering will include access speeds as fast as 25 Mbps per subscriber location, delivering such real-time, next-gen applications as Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) to the enterprise marketplace. Initially, Covad, which currently offers DSL, VoIP, T1, Web-hosting, managed-security, IP and dial-up, wireless broadband, and bundled voice and data services, will offer its enhanced broadband wireless service within its existing network in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. The agreement also allows for expansion to 11 more markets nationwide, including Chicago, Dallas, Miami, New York, Seattle and Washington, D.C. Covad says that as it deploys its new broadband wireless access service, these businesses along with Covad's enterprise-class business customers will have the option to upgrade to a suite of high-speed, Ethernet-based solutions that combine Nextlink's LMDS spectrum with Covad's secure network. -- Regards, Peter RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect Communicate 813.963.5884 http://4isps.com/newsletter.htm -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: Re: [WISPA] How do you market your WISP
Scott; I just discovered that the 'B' and the 'G' are real close together ;-) But seriously, I feel that since we have competition from cable (COX) and DSL (QWEST)I want to get out in front on this thing. For sure though, in every crowd of QWEST/COX customers some of them will be unhappy. We have 60 to 100 miles of unimproved dirt roads. Those customers are my core, and the rest are gravy. Lee From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: wireless@wispa.orgSubject: Re: [WISPA] How do you market your WISPDate: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:47:47 -0500 Wow, I can hardly afford to build my WISP and yours will be guilded!!! With a gold plated WISP, why would you need to advertise? :) Seriously, my WISP, and many others, has experienced steady growth with word of mouth. I have a 4'x6' sign at one tower one a fairly rural road. Other than that it is customer satisfaction. Scott Reed Owner NewWays Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration www.nwwnet.net -- Original Message --- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 09:29:22 -0600 Subject: [WISPA] How do you market your WISP Gentlemen;I am in the final stages of design and have begun to guild my WISP. I was wondering what the most effective methods were for marketing?I was thinking of using the mail, possibly arranging a demo in a parking lot, flyers, and of course adding my company name to the lists on the internet.Lee --- End of Original Message --- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Zcomax has WIMAX?
Sure- but they don't have any plans to make base stations, so none of the base station manufacturer provided QOS mechanisms will work with zcomax clients. - Jeff On 6/12/06 7:44 PM, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.zcom.com.tw/news001.htm -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Wyoming locations that need service
Shot in the dark, but if there are any providers out there that can hit these places, I am a customer for you Alcova 22495 W US Hwy 220Alcova WY82620 Bairoil503 Antelope DrBairoil WY82322 Beulah 5930 Old Hwy 14Beulah WY82712 Bondurant 13884 Hwy 191Bondurant WY82922 Cora 5 Noble RdCora WY 82925 Farson 4050 US 191 NFarson WY82932 Fort Washakie 14 N Fork RdFort Washakie WY82514 Granger 102 Pine StGranger WY 82934 Kinnear11517 Hwy 26KinnearWY82516 Moran1 Central StMoranWY83013 Opal554 Soliday StOpal WY83124 Parkman 49 Railway AveParkman WY82838 Powder River 35304 W Hwy 20-26Powder River WY82648 Recluse 488 Recluse RdRecluse WY82725 Wapiti3189 Northfork HwyWapitiWY82450 Matt Larsen [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] How do you market your WISP
I have a Power Point I did for some ISPs about Marketing. Hit me off-list with your name contact info, if you want it. Regards, Peter RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect Communicate 813.963.5884 http://4isps.com/newsletter.htm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scott; I just discovered that the 'B' and the 'G' are real close together ;-) But seriously, I feel that since we have competition from cable (COX) and DSL (QWEST)I want to get out in front on this thing. For sure though, in every crowd of QWEST/COX customers some of them will be unhappy. We have 60 to 100 miles of unimproved dirt roads. Those customers are my core, and the rest are gravy. Lee From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] How do you market your WISP Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:47:47 -0500 Wow, I can hardly afford to build my WISP and yours will be guilded!!! With a gold plated WISP, why would you need to advertise? :) Seriously, my WISP, and many others, has experienced steady growth with word of mouth. I have a 4'x6' sign at one tower one a fairly rural road. Other than that it is customer satisfaction. Scott Reed Owner NewWays Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration www.nwwnet.net -- Original Message --- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 09:29:22 -0600 Subject: [WISPA] How do you market your WISP Gentlemen; I am in the final stages of design and have begun to guild my WISP. I was wondering what the most effective methods were for marketing? I was thinking of using the mail, possibly arranging a demo in a parking lot, flyers, and of course adding my company name to the lists on the internet. Lee - -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] How do you market your WISP
I'd like to piggy-back off of this thread. I'm getting further in the planning stages for my WISP as well and am trying to come up with ideas for a pilot program. I want to get a few initial customers who will have free internet access for a month or two when I first bring the network online. The idea being that they will identify any potential problem areas and serve as contacts for new customers who would like to talk to someone who has been using the service for a while. I was planning on sending letters to potential pilot program members, but I'm not sure if that will be the best technique. Any suggestions? My ISP will be serving small/medium businesses in an area with existing broadband technologies. Our emphasis will be on reliability and customer support. Once the pilot program is active, I was planning on using direct mailings, door hangers, and other direct communication methods to target potential customers. I anticipate the hardest part will be getting my foot in the door. I like the idea of a parking lot demo, but how to convince the people to take time out of their days to see the equipment is the question. Ideas? Patrick Gentlemen; I am in the final stages of design and have begun to guild my WISP. I was wondering what the most effective methods were for marketing? I was thinking of using the mail, possibly arranging a demo in a parking lot, flyers, and of course adding my company name to the lists on the internet. Lee -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] looking for a device
Hi Paul, Regardless of whether you run routed or switched, the speed is about the same. Unlike a hardware switch that has special processors to handle traffic at wire speeds, a 10GB/s backplane, etc, Mikrotik runs on off-the-shelf PC hardware. The processing power needed to get a packet from port A to port B is about the same regardless of whether you route or switch. We haven't seen much of a performance difference between the two. A link that was 3 ms before seems to be 3 ms now. A multi-hop link that was 6 ms before seems to be about 6 ms now. For us, the advantages were: 1. Centralized customer management. All DHCP and PPPoE handled at a single point. To make changes, we have only one place to visit. 2. Ability to roam. We run the same SSID on all towers and sectors. Now when people roam from one tower to another, their session will follow them seamlessly. 3. Reduced CPU and memory consumption on the Mikrotiks on towers. NAT (connection tracking) and PPPoE are especially CPU and memory intensive. With each AP doing these functions, some of our busy towers were getting pegged at 100% CPU -- not a good thing. Those same towers are now averaging 25% CPU and never seem to go above 60% CPU. 4. Get rid of Mikrotik's buggy OSPF. We love OSPF and use it extensively on our network. But Mikrotik's OSPF implementation has been buggy since day 1 of RouterOS 2.9. We found that OSPF worked reliably under RouterOS 2.8, but under 2.9, we've seen boxes that have all neighbors and no routes, one neighbor (itself) and no routes, no neighbors at all, reset continuously (exstart/init sequence), etc. Everyone's situation is different, but for us, it was definitely the right decision to make. Regards, Dave 989-837-3790 x 151 989-837-3780 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.mercury.net 129 Ashman St, Midland, MI 48640 - Original Message - From: Paul Hendry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 8:03 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] looking for a device We too have been looking at moving from routed to a switched Mikrotik for the core network but the unknown quantity seems to be if there are any latency or speed issues related to the move. A true switched network is faster than a routed network as the switching is done at a hardware level but in Mikrotik I believe both switching and routed is done in software. What have you seen? P. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Sovereen Sent: 13 June 2006 04:12 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] looking for a device We just completed converting our network from routed to bridged. Where each AP (we run Mikrotik) used to do its own DHCP and PPPoE to customers and speak OSPF to the network, the APs (still Mikrotik) now bridge traffic to a regional Mikrotik that handles PPPoE and DHCP for that region. We are using RSTP. In this way, people can roam from one tower to another and their DHCP lease is still good at the next tower. A region for us to 3 to 4 counties. We converted our first region about a month ago and finished the last one last weekend. We're very pleased with the results so far. Dave - Original Message - From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 9:22 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] looking for a device It is worth noting that you lose the benefits of routing protocols when you bridge your network Sure, there's always RSTP... (heh) Many larger wireless / Wifi based architecture these days seem to be favoring a layer 3 tunneling / handoff method over a bridged layer 2 network -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 5:30 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] looking for a device To clarify The term I referred to as Double VLAN is not the technically correct name (thats just what I call it), it is actually called Q in Q as stated by several in this thread. One of the reasons this is valuable is for a wholesale network. It basically allows you to create a single VLAN end to end across your network for a subscriber or reseller, and still use VLAN for your local needs to operate your network. I'll give an example of where I might use VLAN for my network need. I have a single fiber connection from the basement to the roof. On the roof I have a VLAN switch and 6 sector radios. I have a router in the basement. I could then seperate data between the different radio traffic by giving a unique VLAN to the Ethernet port that each sector radio connects to, and route between them in my basement router. I'll give an example of where I'd use a VLAN end to end for a reseller. Reseller has a
RE: [WISPA] How do you market your WISP
Great Topic, this is something I have been working hard at lately and would be interested in everyones input as well. Here are some of the ways we have advertised our service. Yards signs This is my favorite. In the areas that we KNOW qualify for service, Yard Signs is a great way for us to directly market our service to potential customers. For one we know we can get them service, so there is no need to do site surveys. We can schedule that persons install right away, which makes a good impression when the customer calls. The other thing that we love about yard signs, they are a constant reminder to those passing by of what we are offering. Door Hangers Door Hangers is about as direct as you can get, which I am all for, but we havent had any real success using them. I imagine they get lost in the credit card apps and end up in the trash after a quick glance. The return WE have gotten off of Yard Signs is not worth the paper they were printed on, not to mention all the extra work walking around, and the risk of getting mauled by neighborhood dogs. Spamming About every quarter we spam our current Dial-Up and DSL customers in hopes to convert those to Wireless. It is an inexpensive way of getting the word out. I dont have any real numbers to quote on our success with that, but it really doesnt matter because its free. Company Web Site I dont have the percentages, but I always make a point of asking customers where they heard about us. Believe it or not, I have had a bunch of new installs because of our website add. Working with your Partners As you grow, you start to get an idea of how to take advantage of every opportunity, or at least I have. For example, in our last lease contract with the Water Company, we offered them a set monthly lease rate ($100), and on top of that we agreed to pay them $1 extra for every customer that we serviced from their tank. This gave them an incentive to help us grow. They have helped us market our service to their customers by way of news letters, billing statements, and word of mouth. It has proven to be a very good deal for both parties. It is a good thing when we are sending them a couple hundred dollars a month in royalty checks. Get creative!!! Community We have been invited, by the local Amateur Radio club, to be apart of their filed day event here in town. With the emphasis being on how our industry could quickly provide data services in emergency situations. It should be a fun time, and give us an opportunity to spread the word. Maybe try getting something going for the county fair in your town, or other special events. Referral Programs Give away a month of free internet to customers that get you customers. Word of Mouth This is the most important marketing plan you will have, and the one you have no direct control over. Make a great product, support it well, and be available to get it to the public, and you will have great Word of Mouth. Dont be afraid to eat a few dollars to make a customer happy. Often we will fix PCs, configure devices, and basically go the extra mile for our customers. Make sure when you leave their home, they have a smile on their face. This is some of the things we have tried, and I hope it helps, good luck!! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 10:29 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] How do you market your WISP Gentlemen; I am in the final stages of design and have begun to guild my WISP. I was wondering what the most effective methods were for marketing? I was thinking of using the mail, possibly arranging a demo in a parking lot, flyers, and of course adding my company name to the lists on the internet. Lee -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] How do you market your WISP
Hi Lee, We've had great success with 18 X 24 yard signs posted at intersections: http://www.IncomeBuddy.com/ad.php?id=68at=71 I would also suggest making friends with your local real estate developers so you can post 3' X 6' banners at the entrance to their subdivisions: http://www.IncomeBuddy.com/ad.php?id=68at=72 Shannon D. Denniston, Co-Founder KyWiFi, LLC - Mt. Sterling, Kentucky Your Hometown Broadband Provider http://www.KyWiFi.com Call Us Today: 859.274.4033 === $39.99 DSL High Speed Internet $14.99 Home Phone Service - No Phone Line Required for DSL - FREE Activation Equipment - Affordable Upfront Pricing - Locally Owned Operated - We Also Service Most Rural Areas === ISP Business Management System: http://www.ISPBuddy.com === - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 11:29 AM Subject: [WISPA] How do you market your WISP Gentlemen; I am in the final stages of design and have begun to guild my WISP. I was wondering what the most effective methods were for marketing? I was thinking of using the mail, possibly arranging a demo in a parking lot, flyers, and of course adding my company name to the lists on the internet. Lee -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] WCA Anyone?
Matt, Ken and I are planning on it. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Hi all, I'm going to WCA in Washington DC later this month. Anyone else going? Matt Larsen [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] How do you market your WISP
Chad, Thanks for the great email! I'll change 2 of yours: Referrals: instead of a credit on the bill... send them a check.. that's a bigger WOW! Word of Mouth: have downloadable videos of HOWTO's. With your logo prominently displayed on shirts, hats, mouse pads, cups, etc. (Product placement :) If the video is decent, it will be sent out to many people. Spreads your name. - Peter RAD-INFO, Inc. Chad Halsted wrote: Great Topic, this is something I have been working hard at lately and would be interested in everyone’s input as well. Here are some of the ways we have advertised our service. * * *Yards signs* This is my favorite. In the areas that we KNOW qualify for service, Yard Signs is a great way for us to directly market our service to potential customers. For one we know we can get them service, so there is no need to do site surveys. We can schedule that person’s install right away, which makes a good impression when the customer calls. The other thing that we love about yard signs, they are a constant reminder to those passing by of what we are offering. *Door Hangers* Door Hangers is about as direct as you can get, which I am all for, but we haven’t had any real success using them. I imagine they get lost in the credit card apps and end up in the trash after a quick glance. The return WE have gotten off of Yard Signs is not worth the paper they were printed on, not to mention all the extra work walking around, and the risk of getting mauled by neighborhood dogs. *Spamming * About every quarter we spam our current Dial-Up and DSL customers in hopes to convert those to Wireless. It is an inexpensive way of getting the word out. I don’t have any real numbers to quote on our success with that, but it really doesn’t matter because it’s free. *Company Web Site* I don’t have the percentages, but I always make a point of asking customers where they heard about us. Believe it or not, I have had a bunch of new installs because of our website add. *Working with your Partners* As you grow, you start to get an idea of how to take advantage of every opportunity, or at least I have. For example, in our last lease contract with the Water Company, we offered them a set monthly lease rate ($100), and on top of that we agreed to pay them $1 extra for every customer that we serviced from their tank. This gave them an incentive to help us grow. They have helped us market our service to their customers by way of news letters, billing statements, and word of mouth. It has proven to be a very good deal for both parties. It is a good thing when we are sending them a couple hundred dollars a month in royalty checks. Get creative!!! *Community * We have been invited, by the local Amateur Radio club, to be apart of their filed day event here in town. With the emphasis being on how our industry could quickly provide data services in emergency situations. It should be a fun time, and give us an opportunity to spread the word. Maybe try getting something going for the county fair in your town, or other special events. *Referral Programs* Give away a month of free internet to customers that get you customers. *Word of Mouth* This is the most important marketing plan you will have, and the one you have no direct control over. Make a great product, support it well, and be available to get it to the public, and you will have great Word of Mouth. Don’t be afraid to eat a few dollars to make a customer happy. Often we will fix PCs, configure devices, and basically go the extra mile for our customers. Make sure when you leave their home, they have a smile on their face. This is some of the things we have tried, and I hope it helps, good luck!! -Original Message- *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2006 10:29 AM *To:* wireless@wispa.org *Subject:* [WISPA] How do you market your WISP Gentlemen; I am in the final stages of design and have begun to guild my WISP. I was wondering what the most effective methods were for marketing? I was thinking of using the mail, possibly arranging a demo in a parking lot, flyers, and of course adding my company name to the lists on the internet. Lee -- Regards, Peter RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect Communicate 813.963.5884 http://4isps.com/newsletter.htm -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] How do you market your WISP
Chad, Thanks for the great email! I'll change 2 of yours: Referrals: instead of a credit on the bill... send them a check.. that's a bigger WOW! I like the idea of sending them a check. Like you say, that has a much bigger WOW factor. We will have to try that. Word of Mouth: have downloadable videos of HOWTO's. With your logo prominently displayed on shirts, hats, mouse pads, cups, etc. (Product placement :) If the video is decent, it will be sent out to many people. Spreads your name. Another good idea!! - Peter RAD-INFO, Inc. Chad Halsted wrote: Great Topic, this is something I have been working hard at lately and would be interested in everyone's input as well. Here are some of the ways we have advertised our service. * * *Yards signs* This is my favorite. In the areas that we KNOW qualify for service, Yard Signs is a great way for us to directly market our service to potential customers. For one we know we can get them service, so there is no need to do site surveys. We can schedule that person's install right away, which makes a good impression when the customer calls. The other thing that we love about yard signs, they are a constant reminder to those passing by of what we are offering. *Door Hangers* Door Hangers is about as direct as you can get, which I am all for, but we haven't had any real success using them. I imagine they get lost in the credit card apps and end up in the trash after a quick glance. The return WE have gotten off of Yard Signs is not worth the paper they were printed on, not to mention all the extra work walking around, and the risk of getting mauled by neighborhood dogs. *Spamming * About every quarter we spam our current Dial-Up and DSL customers in hopes to convert those to Wireless. It is an inexpensive way of getting the word out. I don't have any real numbers to quote on our success with that, but it really doesn't matter because it's free. *Company Web Site* I don't have the percentages, but I always make a point of asking customers where they heard about us. Believe it or not, I have had a bunch of new installs because of our website add. *Working with your Partners* As you grow, you start to get an idea of how to take advantage of every opportunity, or at least I have. For example, in our last lease contract with the Water Company, we offered them a set monthly lease rate ($100), and on top of that we agreed to pay them $1 extra for every customer that we serviced from their tank. This gave them an incentive to help us grow. They have helped us market our service to their customers by way of news letters, billing statements, and word of mouth. It has proven to be a very good deal for both parties. It is a good thing when we are sending them a couple hundred dollars a month in royalty checks. Get creative!!! *Community * We have been invited, by the local Amateur Radio club, to be apart of their filed day event here in town. With the emphasis being on how our industry could quickly provide data services in emergency situations. It should be a fun time, and give us an opportunity to spread the word. Maybe try getting something going for the county fair in your town, or other special events. *Referral Programs* Give away a month of free internet to customers that get you customers. *Word of Mouth* This is the most important marketing plan you will have, and the one you have no direct control over. Make a great product, support it well, and be available to get it to the public, and you will have great Word of Mouth. Don't be afraid to eat a few dollars to make a customer happy. Often we will fix PCs, configure devices, and basically go the extra mile for our customers. Make sure when you leave their home, they have a smile on their face. This is some of the things we have tried, and I hope it helps, good luck!! -Original Message- *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2006 10:29 AM *To:* wireless@wispa.org *Subject:* [WISPA] How do you market your WISP Gentlemen; I am in the final stages of design and have begun to guild my WISP. I was wondering what the most effective methods were for marketing? I was thinking of using the mail, possibly arranging a demo in a parking lot, flyers, and of course adding my company name to the lists on the internet. Lee -- Regards, Peter RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect Communicate 813.963.5884 http://4isps.com/newsletter.htm -- 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] Wimax corrections-The info is out there if you look
A few corrections: The issue with 3.650 is the FCC has not decided on "ANY" spec. Wimax was never a 3.650 "issue" and this has been corrected time and time again. The FCC has stated publicly many times that Wimax was never overlooked as a platform. The wifi crowd took the "contention based" excerpt to the extreme and the drum beat continues today. Wimax "will" do more than current 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz OFDM products. Just to name a few -Bits per hertz increased, packets per second through the radio increased, Standardization, 256 OFDM vs 64 OFDM and many more differences. And if you're comparing Wimaxed OFDM solutions to DS based systems there are major differences. Please keep in mind that not all pre-Wimax OFDM systems are comparable. The "current" Wimax protocol is not interference resilient. However, there is a body in the forum working on a solution called 802.16h. Expect to see sub $300 cpe this yearsurprise .it's already here. Brad From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 2:09 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Zcomax has WIMAX? Few things of info: - 3.5Ghz is not not license free in the, 50Mhz at 3.65 is but there are issue with using this with WiMax - WiMax doesNOT do any more at 2.4Ghz or 5Ghz then theproducts on the market today in reference to RF not protocol. - The WiMax protocol has many cool features but are based on a model where there is little or no interface. - I would not expect to see any WiMax product near pricing most WISP pay today to mid 2007 end 2008. I am sure by then there will be sub $100 CPE using the other standards whichwill have most if not all the features WiMax has in the spec. Sincerely, Tony Morella Demarc Technology Group, A Wireless Solution Provider Office: 207-667-7583 Fax: 207-433-1008 http://www.demarctech.com This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This communication may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the confidential or privileged nature of the communication. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender by return electronic mail and delete all copies of this communication From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jenco Wireless Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:50 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Zcomax has WIMAX? Why is the 3.5 Wi-Max license free band not approved in the U.S. ??? -- Brad H On 6/12/06, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.zcom.com.tw/news001.htm -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- 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(192). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(42). -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
Patrick Leary wrote: Indeed, and the Pew study is very credible, well circulated on the Hill, and used frequently as source material for other briefings and other reports. Just because something is widely circulated among influential people doesn't make it correct. I do firmly believe that WISPs everywhere should milk that Pew report for all it's worth, just don't drink too much of the Kool-Aid. (Also, Patrick, either your mail system is indulging in necromancy, or your desktop's clock is woefully wrong, as this email that just made it to the list earlier today has a Date: stamp from three weeks ago.) David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] looking for a device
favoring a layer 3 tunneling / handoff method Care to elaborate on those methods. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 9:22 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] looking for a device It is worth noting that you lose the benefits of routing protocols when you bridge your network Sure, there's always RSTP... (heh) Many larger wireless / Wifi based architecture these days seem to be favoring a layer 3 tunneling / handoff method over a bridged layer 2 network -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.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] 3650 equipment
Nah. What Charles misses in his commentary 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 =( is that a band doesn't need to be licensed to insure that a technology is only competing with like technology. All the FCC would have to do to make Charles presumption all wet is to only type accept 3650 products compliant to a common spec. Unless I'm mistaken, there aren't any GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends in the 3650 band. As long as the rules only type accept a common interference avoidance spec (or a contention spec as many call it), then unlicensed systems in the same band play nice. Rich - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 2:29 PM Subject: 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 wireless@wispa.org 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 wireless@wispa.org 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
Re: [WISPA] Wimax corrections-The info is out there if you look
Title: Re: [WISPA] Wimax corrections-The info is out there if you look On the CPE pricing... Yup, and the only one shipping 5.8 product yet is Airspan. - Jeff On 6/13/06 6:42 AM, Brad Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A few corrections: The issue with 3.650 is the FCC has not decided on ANY spec. Wimax was never a 3.650 issue and this has been corrected time and time again. The FCC has stated publicly many times that Wimax was never overlooked as a platform. The wifi crowd took the contention based excerpt to the extreme and the drum beat continues today. Wimax will do more than current 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz OFDM products. Just to name a few -Bits per hertz increased, packets per second through the radio increased, Standardization, 256 OFDM vs 64 OFDM and many more differences. And if you're comparing Wimaxed OFDM solutions to DS based systems there are major differences. Please keep in mind that not all pre-Wimax OFDM systems are comparable. The current Wimax protocol is not interference resilient. However, there is a body in the forum working on a solution called 802.16h. Expect to see sub $300 cpe this yearsurprise .it's already here. Brad From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 2:09 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Zcomax has WIMAX? Few things of info: - 3.5Ghz is not not license free in the, 50Mhz at 3.65 is but there are issue with using this with WiMax - WiMax does NOT do any more at 2.4Ghz or 5Ghz then the products on the market today in reference to RF not protocol. - The WiMax protocol has many cool features but are based on a model where there is little or no interface. - I would not expect to see any WiMax product near pricing most WISP pay today to mid 2007 end 2008. I am sure by then there will be sub $100 CPE using the other standards which will have most if not all the features WiMax has in the spec. Sincerely, Tony Morella Demarc Technology Group, A Wireless Solution Provider Office: 207-667-7583 Fax: 207-433-1008 http://www.demarctech.com http://www.demarctech.com/ This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This communication may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the confidential or privileged nature of the communication. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender by return electronic mail and delete all copies of this communication From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jenco Wireless Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:50 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Zcomax has WIMAX? Why is the 3.5 Wi-Max license free band not approved in the U.S. ??? -- Brad H On 6/12/06, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.zcom.com.tw/news001.htm -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org mailto:wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 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(192). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(42). -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] looking for a device
Matt, You brought up an excellent point regarding management gains with MPLS. In many cases, I'd argue MPLS the preferable choice. But MPLS is not always a viable choice, that VLAN can deliver viably. What I mean by that is... There is not yet a complete/stable/tried-and-true MPLS Open Source product on the market. (they exist but not recently updated or supported). Many providers have used Open Source to their advantage. Selecting MPLS may also mean migrating to a new foundation behind one's network. From Open Source to Name Brand. I'm not saying thats a bad thing. I'm just saying it might be more than a provider wants to do to accomplish their goals. VLAN allows an ISP to just drop it in. The trade off is a management headache. These comments are meant as a very generalized comment, there are obvious many exceptions to the view.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 7:58 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] looking for a device Charles Wu wrote: It is worth noting that you lose the benefits of routing protocols when you bridge your network The above is the number one reason against using VLANs for layer 2 transport. A second important issue to consider is management. Every device from end-to-end where you want to deliver layer 2 transport requires configuration if you use VLANs. Both of the above issues are solved with MPLS. First, MPLS rides on top of your layer 3 network giving you all the benefits of routing protocols. Second, you only need to configure the edge device on either side of a layer 2 virtual circuit. All the devices in-between --including protection paths don't require additional configuration for each virtual circuit. -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/
Re: [WISPA] The muni Wi-Fi poster child lied?
Matt, Great find on the arcticle. However, I ask, does the press hurt or help WISPs? Is it saying, they should have deplyoed Fiber? Or should have left it up to the professional local WISP, and stuck to governemt stuff? Or They need better wireless gear than Wifi? Do WISPs win, if the industry looses the investment dollars to the fiber telcos? So theWISPs win, not having competitions? Or will more WISPs be brought in as partners with recognized knowledge? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 9:13 AM Subject: [WISPA] The muni Wi-Fi poster child lied? From Techdirt http://news.techdirt.com/news/wireless/article/6717 Putting A Little Lipstick On Muni WiFi Back in May, 2004, Municipal Wireless was still just on the drawing board, but a few towns and cities were about to lead the charge into using WiFi to meet their admirable goal of providing low-cost connectivity. At the time, I wrote about Chaska, Minnesota, a suburb of Minneapolis that was launching their citywide network. I argued in Techdirt and in USA Today that WiFi would be the wrong choice for Muni Wireless because of range (it's a LAN technology) and interference issues, among others. My opinion was contrasted by Bradley Mayer, the city IT Manager responsible for spearheading Chaska.net, who was very optimistic about the planned network. By October, we were both again quoted in a CNN.com article in which I say: I haven't seen a lot of what I would consider real successes yet [with municipal wireless]. More and more cities are announcing they're going to do [Muni WiFi], and I get concerned because I'm hearing more and more rhetoric that isn't consistent with the underlying technology. Mr. Mayer, in contrast, said, So far, customers are happy with the city's Wi-Fi start. Accepting what Mayer said as truth, myself and others had to concede that smaller towns may prove us wrong on Muni WiFi. I actually spoke with Mayer in late 2004 as part of some private research I was conducting for a telco client, and he again portrayed the Chaska WiFi network as a glowing example of how Muni WiFi works well. Flash forward to the present, and imagine how frustrating it is, then, to see Mr. Mayer admit, ex post facto, that Chaska's network was actually quite a mess. Of course, the Tribune article claims that that is all in the past, and now the network is great. Well, I'm sorry, but there is a credibility gap to address now. We were told it was great 18 months ago, but later we're told by the same person It took about a year and a half before we felt we really had a good handle on the network. And according to Mayer's' boss, The speed wasn't good, or they [subscribers] couldn't get on [the network]. Sometimes customer service was a problem. It was hard for us to staff up to meet peak times. There was an early 50% cost over-run to deploy more APs, and there has been a subsequent full upgrade to the next generation of Tropos gear. The city, not able to handle the maintenance of the network, contracted Siemens to do the task, and also has outsourced support. However good they claim things are now, it certainly looks like it was a disaster until just recently. And those are the real results from Chaska, a city that had all the advantages of manageable size, pre-existing links to the Internet backbone, ownership of the local power utility, low building height, and full utility pole access. But now, we're to believe the current network is great because they say so...again. Mr. Mayer, who parlayed his Muni WiFi deployment experience in Chaska into a better job as the WiFi deployment expert at Earthlink, is quoted in the Trib as saying there was a lot of pre-conceived notions that you could just blast [Wi-Fi signals] through walls and trees and everything. It might save a lot of money if Muni Broadband enthusiasts take a good hard look at WiFi vs. other options before deployment, instead of forging ahead on wishful thinking and pre-conceived notions. -- 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] looking for a device
Anyone compared a routed solution with a Mikrotik bridged solution for delay/jitter? Good question. But the problem there is creating a real world test environment. Convergence, can be tested somewhat accurately in low network utilization situations. To adequately test Jitter/Delay you really need to load the network, as that is when the jitter and sparatic latency happens. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Paul Hendry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 9:02 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] looking for a device The delay in switching a packet at hardware is less than the delay in routing a packet at software. This is 1 of the reasons that Cisco created the GSR and why an MPLS switched network is fast than a plain routed network. I'm not too interested in convergence times as we only have very minimal outages so RSTP should suffice. How fast a packet can traverse our network on the other hand is important so that we can reliably run VoIP and other delay/jitter sensitive applications. Anyone compared a routed solution with a Mikrotik bridged solution for delay/jitter? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: 13 June 2006 13:26 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] looking for a device Paul Hendry wrote: We too have been looking at moving from routed to a switched Mikrotik for the core network but the unknown quantity seems to be if there are any latency or speed issues related to the move. A true switched network is faster than a routed network as the switching is done at a hardware level but in Mikrotik I believe both switching and routed is done in software. What have you seen? Faster in what way? Certainly, a routed network is going to beat a switched network in terms of covergence speed. -Matt -- 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: 268.8.3/362 - Release Date: 12/06/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.3/362 - Release Date: 12/06/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Wierd ... was [WISPA] 3650 equipment
My appologies to the list. I'd added a couple cents to a thread that had ended weeks ago. Wierd, but my email client just pulled about 30 emails today on these old threads as if they were new. I'm reading along ... and this thread looks familiar ... and only after sending a reply to one of them did I notice Patrick had penned that mail back on May 26th. Wierder yet is that I'd completely failed to notice that the 30 or so old emails were almost all old posts from Patrick that were several weeks old, with a couple from Brad that were about a week old. Don't know if the server hosting my mailbox did a drive restore that ressurected old mail or whether anyone else got a copies of old mail too. Has this ever happened to anyone else? With dozens of email arrivals on the thread 3650 equipment and This is HUGE! I thought that these topics had reborn again! :-) My mistake. Rich - Original Message - From: Rich Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 7:33 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Nah. What Charles misses in his commentary 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 =( is that a band doesn't need to be licensed to insure that a technology is only competing with like technology. All the FCC would have to do to make Charles presumption all wet is to only type accept 3650 products compliant to a common spec. Unless I'm mistaken, there aren't any GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends in the 3650 band. As long as the rules only type accept a common interference avoidance spec (or a contention spec as many call it), then unlicensed systems in the same band play nice. Rich - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 2:29 PM Subject: 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 wireless@wispa.org 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
Re: Wierd ... was [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Might not be you, others commented about the Patricks late emails. Rich Comroe wrote: My appologies to the list. I'd added a couple cents to a thread that had ended weeks ago. Wierd, but my email client just pulled about 30 emails today on these old threads as if they were new. I'm reading along ... and this thread looks familiar ... and only after sending a reply to one of them did I notice Patrick had penned that mail back on May 26th. Wierder yet is that I'd completely failed to notice that the 30 or so old emails were almost all old posts from Patrick that were several weeks old, with a couple from Brad that were about a week old. Don't know if the server hosting my mailbox did a drive restore that ressurected old mail or whether anyone else got a copies of old mail too. Has this ever happened to anyone else? With dozens of email arrivals on the thread 3650 equipment and This is HUGE! I thought that these topics had reborn again! :-) My mistake. Rich - Original Message - From: Rich Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 7:33 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Nah. What Charles misses in his commentary 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 =( is that a band doesn't need to be licensed to insure that a technology is only competing with like technology. All the FCC would have to do to make Charles presumption all wet is to only type accept 3650 products compliant to a common spec. Unless I'm mistaken, there aren't any GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends in the 3650 band. As long as the rules only type accept a common interference avoidance spec (or a contention spec as many call it), then unlicensed systems in the same band play nice. Rich - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 2:29 PM Subject: 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 wireless@wispa.org 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
RE: Wierd ... was [WISPA] 3650 equipment
I ogt them too... 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 Rich Comroe Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 11:21 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Wierd ... was [WISPA] 3650 equipment My appologies to the list. I'd added a couple cents to a thread that had ended weeks ago. Wierd, but my email client just pulled about 30 emails today on these old threads as if they were new. I'm reading along ... and this thread looks familiar ... and only after sending a reply to one of them did I notice Patrick had penned that mail back on May 26th. Wierder yet is that I'd completely failed to notice that the 30 or so old emails were almost all old posts from Patrick that were several weeks old, with a couple from Brad that were about a week old. Don't know if the server hosting my mailbox did a drive restore that ressurected old mail or whether anyone else got a copies of old mail too. Has this ever happened to anyone else? With dozens of email arrivals on the thread 3650 equipment and This is HUGE! I thought that these topics had reborn again! :-) My mistake. Rich - Original Message - From: Rich Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 7:33 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Nah. What Charles misses in his commentary 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 =( is that a band doesn't need to be licensed to insure that a technology is only competing with like technology. All the FCC would have to do to make Charles presumption all wet is to only type accept 3650 products compliant to a common spec. Unless I'm mistaken, there aren't any GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends in the 3650 band. As long as the rules only type accept a common interference avoidance spec (or a contention spec as many call it), then unlicensed systems in the same band play nice. Rich - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 2:29 PM Subject: 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
Re: Wierd ... was [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Gino A. Villarini wrote: I ogt them too... I peeked at the headers (sorry, that's my schtick) and while the Date: header said three weeks ago, they were only sent today. I'm guessing Patrick just has a computer with a really squirrely clock. David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: Wierd ... was [WISPA] 3650 equipment
It is not a clock issue. All the messages that were sent with old dates were already delivered previously. These are duplicate messages. Scriv David E. Smith wrote: Gino A. Villarini wrote: I ogt them too... I peeked at the headers (sorry, that's my schtick) and while the Date: header said three weeks ago, they were only sent today. I'm guessing Patrick just has a computer with a really squirrely clock. David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: Wierd ... was [WISPA] 3650 equipment
John Scrivner wrote: It is not a clock issue. All the messages that were sent with old dates were already delivered previously. These are duplicate messages. Hm. Hmmm (digs around through mail server logs) Well, the old posts from three weeks ago and the new posts from today have different Message-IDs, so at least it ain't my fault. :) David Smith Semi-Unofficial WISPA Web Tinker MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
