RE: [WISPA] Sales Marketing of Unlicensed Wireless Services --SomeObservations

2006-02-24 Thread chris cooper
Multiple of RPU is still how Ive seen deals evaluated, past and present.
The thinking on the part of the buyer is I can buy you for X multiple
of sales today. Yes- I can achieve economies of scale, yes I might be
able to sell more services and crank up the revenue.  But- those future
activities occur on my dime, not yours Mr. Seller, so all that value
should go to me.  Ill take the future risk and Ill get the rewards. You
get rewarded for your past performance to date.  You always need to
protect yourself and be ready to leave the dance when the right date
comes along. In the late 90's there were a lot of deals happening for
dial-up shops, some good, some bad.  The ones I saw were solid cash out
deals.  The squirrelly ones I saw were generally the deals that involved
some future potential.

Chris


Wrong. Thats old school.  Evaluation is a direct multiple of the ARPU
that 
the buyer can acheive because they bought your netowrk. Consider their
new 
ability to gain revenue at a quicker rate, based on the unique benefit
of 
combining the buyers and sellers assets. The way of increasing revenue
is 
irrelevent. Consildation... Time to Market... illiminating a competitor 
allowing for higher prices, Throwing money and a marketing engine onto a

network built out to serve that previously had little money to market
its 
growth.



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Wi-Fi causes leukemia and brain tumors

2006-02-24 Thread Mac Dearman

How about a wireless Tumor?  or  Wi-tumor-Fi

That sounds like one of the college fraternities   lol

Mac Dearman
Maximum Access, LLC.
Authorized Barracuda Reseller
MikroTik RouterOS Certified
www.inetsouth.com
www.mac-tel.us
www.RadioResponse.org (Katrina Relief)
Rayville, La.
318.728.8600
318.303.4227
318.303.4229





- Original Message - 
From: Brian Rohrbacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wi-Fi causes leukemia and brain tumors



I'll take a tumor and wireless over no tumor and no wireless.

Victoria wrote:

I have been wondering about that thing growing on the side of my head, or 
it

is just the bumps that I have gotten since I have been into wireless?

Nice to see you too Jack.  Climb any mountains lately? :-)
Victoria

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 6:51 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wi-Fi causes leukemia and brain tumors

Prudent Avoidance (playing it safe) ???

Owww, owww stop hitting me :)


Take care Victoria (long-time, no see - I was glad to hear that you're 
doing

OK).

Best wishes,
 jack


Victoria wrote:


A Canadian University recently banned Wi-Fi due to unproven health risks.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/22/canada_uni_wifi_ban/

Victoria Proffer
www.StLouisBroadBand.com
314-974-5600




--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP
Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com






--
Brian Rohrbacher
Reliable Internet, LLC
www.reliableinter.net
Cell 269-838-8338

Caught up in the Air 1 Thess. 4:17

--
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] Wisp In Killington VT?

2006-02-24 Thread G.Villarini
Title: Message








Yeah, we are finding out this right nowway
too much ice last December I skied Vail, way better





Gino A. Villarini, 

Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

www.aeronetpr.com

787.273.4143













From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Charles Wu
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006
7:16 PM
To: 'WISPA
 General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Wisp In Killington VT?







East Coast Snow =(











Go Rockies
-- east coast is WAY too icy











-Charles















---
WiNOG Austin, TX
March 13-15, 2006
http://www.winog.com 



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of G.Villarini
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006
4:52 PM
To: 'WISPA
 General List'
Subject: [WISPA] Wisp In Killington VT?

Hey folks,



I up in Killington
 VT doing some skiying Who
the wisp servicing the area with Trango stuff?



Gino A. Villarini, 

Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

www.aeronetpr.com

787.273.4143










-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Sales Marketing of Unlicensed Wireless Services --SomeObservations

2006-02-24 Thread danlist
 
 I'd argue market conditions is the biggest factor. So why spend the money on
 the higher price gear?
 

Well currently canopy is pretty cheap but only does 7Mbps/7Mbps throughput, a
MT system w/ 23db MTI pocket antenna is about $400 but will do 30Mbps with good
SNR and 15Mbps w/o a problem

The next step is the alvarion VL line which is pretty costly, then there is the
solectek(sp?), and some other atheros based solutions, all seem to be about
$1000 cpe priced solutions

I want the 15Mbps to 30Mbps to the CPE and will pay more than the canopy cheapo
version to get, is it worth it? Is it worth to roll my own MT solution or to pay
more for the pre-rolled alvarion/solectek/etc?
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.0.0/267 - Release Date: 02/22/2006
 

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Sales Marketing of Unlicensed Wireless Services --Some Observations

2006-02-24 Thread Matt Liotta

Charles Wu wrote:


I would disagree with you on the above statement
IMO, I've found that the SMB service offering (e.g., sub-T1 to 3xT1) plans
seem to be the most profitable (highest margin) opportunities available
Once you get to carrier services (e.g., 10+ Mb) -- the big guys start to
take notice and completely drop their pants

 

You can disagree with the statement, but you should accept that it is 
true in our case.


-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] Sales Marketing of Unlicensed Wireless Services--SomeObservations

2006-02-24 Thread Matt Liotta
You seem to making the assumption that the services you are comparing 
are the same. In our case, our VoIP provides significantly better 
quality than offered by Vonage. Further, we can actually support fax, 
which tons of VoIP providers fall down on including Vonage. Thus, I 
don't have to offer retail voice at the same price as Vonage.


Customers are stupid unless they want to be. Explain how relying upon 
VoIP over the internet will likely result in poor quality and compare 
that with a VoIP service controlled by the owner of the network. If you 
control the entire network from the CPE to your softswitch then outside 
of incompetence, the Vonages of the world can't compete.


-Matt

Mark Koskenmaki wrote:

- Original Message - 
From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 7:46 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Sales  Marketing of Unlicensed Wireless
Services--SomeObservations


 


snip
I desperately need a GOOD VOIP wholesale deal, where I own the customer
   


and
 


do frontline support, it's my own brand (if I brand it) and I merely  bulk
buy minutes, numbers, and CPE.I can't sell my customers a 400 minute
account that costs me 25 bucks a month.  They can buy Packet8 for less
   


than
 


most resell deals.
/snip

You're thinking like the ISP techie -- e.g., if I'm not better / cheaper
   


/
 


faster...then I can't be in business

Obviously, this isn't how things work
   



Charles, you assume far too much.   This is Mark The Businessman talking.

You see, if I can't provide my customers good value for thier money, then I
have no business taking thier money.

It's how I sleep at night and it's my duty to my fellow man.   Maybe some
folks out there will rape the customer for all he can get from him... I
cannot do so in good conscience.

I do not have to be cheaper.  I have to provide the customer good value
for his money.Darn, that's old fashioned.  My God, it's moralistic.
Heavens, it's totally out of fashion loyalty to customers...

Whatever it is, that's how I do business, and if you're here to tell me
this isn't how things work then don't waste your breath.I'm not
looking to be the cheapest on earth.   I am NOT the cheapest you can get
for broadband where I am.   But I am good value for the money.   And that's
what I want to offer for VOIP service, too.

 


Case in point -- I know of a market that consists of 2 Canopy WISPs -- the
owners / principles of one come from a techie / residential ISP
   


background,
 


and sell wireless broadband connections (various rates of 1 Mb, 2 Mb, 3 Mb
burstable connections) for $29-69 / month

In the same market, the 2nd Canopy WISP has people who come from a carrier
   


/
 


enterprise sales background, and they sell the EXACT SAME WIRELESS
CONNECTION (from a technological standpoint that is, it's still an
unlicensed Motorola SM / AP) for $300-600 / month

Now, it is worth noting that the guys in WISP #2 are 100 lbs overweight,
have grey hair, and wear suits, while the guys in WISP #1 (although in
   


their
 


late 20s now) -- still resemble adolescent college fraternity kids

However, when they first hit the market, I was thinking, jeez, these guys
(WISP #2) are absolutely nuts, they're morons, trying to sell overpriced
@#$@ -- they'll never turn on a customer

Yet consistently, I see guys from WISP #2 outsell guys from WISP #1 in
competitive deals (e.g., customer has a T1 line they're paying $500 /
   


month
 


for, and WISP #1 comes in and tries to sell a 3 Mb connection for $69 --
nothing happens -- 3 months later, WISP #2 comes in and sells a 3 Mb
dedicated connection for $600 / month to the same customer)

Go figure...
   



They say There's a sucker born every minute.   I will not take advantage
of them.

When I reach the end of my life it will not matter if I were rich or poor,
only whether I can face my Maker with a clean conscience.


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

-

 


-Charles


---
WiNOG Austin, TX
March 13-15, 2006
http://www.winog.com



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 5:09 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sales  Marketing of Unlicensed Wireless Services
--SomeObservations


Quote:   IT'S OBVIOUSLY MORE THAN JUST TECHNOLOGY... 

yes, it is.   More to the point, it's about meeting your customer's needs
   


or
 


wants.

Not shoving things at them they don't need or want, but genuinely
discovering what it is that sparks them to buy in the first place.



I'd rather just bundle a VOIP service in a higher level tier (let's move
from 38 / mo to 55 or 60/mo ) of service, 

Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-24 Thread Tom DeReggi

Matt,

I think you are misinterpretting my comments. Don't read more in to them 
than are there.
I am in no way attacking the validity of your experience or comments. I'm 
simply asking for more detail, so that I can learn from your experience.



You seem to be suggesting that I simply haven't looked for information


No I am not. I am asking you to tell me what you know, so I don't have to 
waste time replicating your research.
Thats the purpose of this list, to exchange knowledge and data. Not just 
making claims, but disclosing why.



I am not making arguments based upon information I read somewhere.


I never suggest that. And Neither am I.
But no, I do not own a city wide MESH network. I decided against MESH, which 
is why my opinion is biased against MESH.
I can count the total ISPs on one hand that have completed that task as of 
today.
Maybe two Muni's that had been legally allowed to proceed doing a large 
public network.

So my experience level does not lessen my point of view.


We do a vast amount of research before doing field trials.


Of course you do. Just like most WISPs do. I can't count how many single 
unit Mesh system we had sent to evaluate. Its likely you did the same.
As a router operating system manufacturer with protocol level coding 
experience, (but never went to market), we also have a great deal of talent 
on staff, to investigate the trade offs of various technologies.  But you 
have to understand, that sooner or later a WISP needs to put the science 
projects aside, and start making sales, and they don't always have time to 
keep up to date on every latest and greatest daily enhancements to a 
technology, when they've decided on a different path to follow. I really 
don't have time to evaluate every manufacturers' Mesh product on a weekly 
basis to prove right or wrong their latest theories in their field.



It doesn't appear you have done nearly the research we have
 and it doesn't appear you have any significant mesh deployments.


This is where your comments are starting to cross the line, and in my 
opinion not acceptable. What basis do you have to pass judgement on what 
experience my company has, and what research we have done? You've never 
taken one step into our research lab, nor ever spoken to one of our 
engineers. To the best of my knowledge, I have not disclosed to you, any 
thing about my client baseand projects.  I advise you to stick to passing 
judgement on your experience, which is what you are knowedgable on.


This is NOT a competition to prove who is the smarter technician and network 
designer. I do not claim to be Grand Master MESH. But I am more than 
qualified to carry on intelligent debate on the pros and cons of various 
routing and wireless technologies.


I suggest you field trial the technology in a meaningful way before 
dismissing it.


I am not dismissing MESH technology. I just have personally chosen against 
it, for the majority of my projects, for technical reason appropriate for 
the needs of those deployments. That does not mean that I do not recognize 
that the MESH technologies have merit.  And I recognize that huge 
advancements have been made since the first generation gear days of 
WaveWireless and Motorola 6 years ago (Yes, went to manufacturer training 
for both).  What we need to be concentrating on in this discussion, is more 
detail on how and why current MESH software had been used to solve your 
problems, and what were the trade offs, and why did you still chose that 
technology knowing those trade offs. ALL technologies have trade-offs.  That 
is what helps everyone decide when which topology is best for them to deploy 
for specific applications.


Cisco defines a mesh network as a communications network having two or 
more paths to any node. I would agree with that definition. How would you 
define mesh?


I don't disagree with that definition. And technically in the dictionary, if 
it had to be defined, that could be it.  But I feel MESH is more of a 
mindset than a definition.  In practicality and real world, that MESH 
definition is two broad to cover all the many ways of implementing MESH. 
That definition does not define why someone would benefit from usingthe 
technology. I look at MESH as a concept of how to better gain coverage to a 
large number of people and/or geographical area, when Line-of-sight to a 
central or common sources are frequently obstructed, which typically 
requires more radios, installed closer togeather, and a method to manage 
their relationships, apposed to defining the way nodes communicate.


I don't think I will agree that a human is better suited to the job 
though.


Some people believed in John Henry, some believed in the Steam engine.  I 
agree that the ultimately a computer (or technology) has more potential to 
be better equipped to make those decissions. However, today is not that day 
yet, and I have more confidence in the engineer (human).  Not because the 
computer isn't 

RE: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-24 Thread Brian Webster
Quoting Tom:

What often happens, is technical people
make these beautiful products from a technical point of view, but they are
worthless because they don't solve the problems that need to be solved for
its applications, which were the reasons for originally developing the
technology.

Man have you hot the nail on the head!  Motorola is a company that gets
caught in this all the time. I can't tell you how many times over the years
I went to product introduction seminars as a 2 way radio dealer and the lead
engineer would be touting all the cool wiz bang features of the new radio.
It would always happen where a dealer would stand up and ask does the radio
still do XYZ? They would get a glassy eyed stare and say no, that is old
technology and we did not include it in this model The follow up statement
from the dealer would be  do you realize that 80% of our customer base
still uses this technology, what do we tell them? and the engineer would
say  They will need to upgrade to the new technology. My take on this was
that they spent so much time patting themselves on the back in the lab with
their new toys that they never researched what the customer wanted and
needed to solve their communication problem. Typical Motorola attitude, they
will tell the customer what they need or what they will be
getting...They still have not learned this lesson...which is too
bad because they do have the ability to make great products and great
radios.


Brian

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-24 Thread Brad Larson
Tom, IMHO mesh is great for lighting up downtown and city parks etc. but it
has yet to prove itself in a large deployment with 1,000's of customers or
1,000's of nodes deployed. I too have first hand experience backhauling
several mesh projects and the mesh edge so far has not been easy at all.
Here in Northeast USA 15 mesh nodes per square miles doesn't even come close
to what's needed. I've also found that implementing mesh in major metro
areas, where there are already 1,000's of wifi access points, shrinks
coverage models and can turn a well intentioned response to an RFP
laughable. I believe Philadelphia projects 70k users in 5 years on 3900 mesh
nodes backhauled by Canopy. We'll see.

I'd love to see a comparison of our BreezeAccess VL with one mile centers
and our high powered DS11 on the edge in Anytown USA vs mesh. I'm working on
a few of my guys to do such a test so stay tuned. 

What it comes down to is the fact that Matt may have just the right terrain
and noise floor without the traffic that some of these larger projects will
get hammered with so it works for his company. Mesh is a tool for a certain
job just like other gear. But I don't believe mesh should be construed as
broadband for the masses in any major metro area. Brad 




-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 2:28 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment


Matt,

I think you are misinterpretting my comments. Don't read more in to them 
than are there.
I am in no way attacking the validity of your experience or comments. I'm 
simply asking for more detail, so that I can learn from your experience.

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-24 Thread Linda Pond
Tom and Brian:

So very eloquantly said!  Do Motorola - and companies like them -  a favour: 
please forward these comments to them.  They need to hear this, and will be 
a better company if they hear and heed it.

Linda

Linda Pond
President
Customer Connects
Bridging Technology Relationships
www.customerconnects.com
613-253-0240 (w)
613-291-2884 (c)
BLOG:  http://lindaleepond.blogspot.com/

- Original Message - 
From: Brian Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 2:56 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment


Quoting Tom:

What often happens, is technical people
make these beautiful products from a technical point of view, but they are
worthless because they don't solve the problems that need to be solved for
its applications, which were the reasons for originally developing the
technology.

Man have you hot the nail on the head!  Motorola is a company that gets
caught in this all the time. I can't tell you how many times over the years
I went to product introduction seminars as a 2 way radio dealer and the lead
engineer would be touting all the cool wiz bang features of the new radio.
It would always happen where a dealer would stand up and ask does the radio
still do XYZ? They would get a glassy eyed stare and say no, that is old
technology and we did not include it in this model The follow up statement
from the dealer would be  do you realize that 80% of our customer base
still uses this technology, what do we tell them? and the engineer would
say  They will need to upgrade to the new technology. My take on this was
that they spent so much time patting themselves on the back in the lab with
their new toys that they never researched what the customer wanted and
needed to solve their communication problem. Typical Motorola attitude, they
will tell the customer what they need or what they will be
getting...They still have not learned this lesson...which is too
bad because they do have the ability to make great products and great
radios.


Brian

-- 
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] commscope 3227 coax

2006-02-24 Thread Mario Pommier

has anyone used Comm-scope Cable 3227 LMR400-type coax?
it is reliable?
Thanks.

Mario


Kurt Fankhauser wrote:


Judge Judy

Kurt Fankhauser
WAVELINC
114 S. Walnut St.
Bucyrus, OH 44820
419-562-6405
www.wavelinc.com


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Cliff Leboeuf
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 10:07 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Terms and Contracts

Jory,

To me, it depends on a few things...

1. Do you have a written contract that has a term commitment and
the cancellation fees clearly stated?
2. If you do, is it amount worth pursuing for collections based
on the risk, money and time you will spend?
3. If you do pursue, and win, is the customer capable of paying
the judgment?

I have been successful in enforcing a number of my contracts through
small claims court.

- Cliff


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jory Privett
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 11:41 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Terms and Contracts

I was just wondering how a small WISP goes about enforcing a contract?
If 
someone cancels early what actions do I have available to enforce their 
contract?  Any Ideas or suggestions?


Jory Privett
WCCS


 


---
[This e-mail was scanned for viruses by Webjogger's AntiVirus Protection System]

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-24 Thread Rich Comroe
Your comments couldn't be more appropriate.  I'm hearing 3rd hand that Moto 
just announced on webinar's today that their next firmware release (8.0) 
will no longer support compatibility with the original Canopy protocol, so 
original deployed equipment must be replaced.  Some unhappy comments 
appearing on the [Motorola] list.


Rich

- Original Message - 
From: Brian Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 1:56 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment



Quoting Tom:

What often happens, is technical people
make these beautiful products from a technical point of view, but they are
worthless because they don't solve the problems that need to be solved for
its applications, which were the reasons for originally developing the
technology.

Man have you hot the nail on the head!  Motorola is a company that gets
caught in this all the time. I can't tell you how many times over the 
years
I went to product introduction seminars as a 2 way radio dealer and the 
lead

engineer would be touting all the cool wiz bang features of the new radio.
It would always happen where a dealer would stand up and ask does the 
radio

still do XYZ? They would get a glassy eyed stare and say no, that is old
technology and we did not include it in this model The follow up 
statement

from the dealer would be  do you realize that 80% of our customer base
still uses this technology, what do we tell them? and the engineer would
say  They will need to upgrade to the new technology. My take on this 
was
that they spent so much time patting themselves on the back in the lab 
with

their new toys that they never researched what the customer wanted and
needed to solve their communication problem. Typical Motorola attitude, 
they

will tell the customer what they need or what they will be
getting...They still have not learned this lesson...which is 
too

bad because they do have the ability to make great products and great
radios.


Brian

--
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] VOIP

2006-02-24 Thread Peter R.

Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:



So far, LNP is not a big deal - it's pretty easy to get a toll-free line.


Toll-free is not LNP.
How does the biz client keep his phone number without keeping his 
service with the LEC?


But the 911 requirement is a problem.  The whole PSAP setup where the 
local authorities get their 911 information is a joke.  CLECs control 
access and can charge whatever they want - plus there is a charge for 
every communication center connection.
I see two out of the box ways to deal with the 911 requirement.  The 
first, is to have a wifi/gsm phone, and roaming agreements with GSM 
providers.  Then , responsibility for the 911 call is shifted to the 
GSM provider.



This only solves the 911 not the Enhanced 911 problem.

Regards,

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

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

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


Re: [WISPA] VOIP BOC?

2006-02-24 Thread Peter R.

we call them TELE-BARONS.


A. Huppenthal wrote:

I wonder what we should start calling the new telcos. There are 3 
international companies that control nearly all of telcom today. 
Verizon/MCI, SBC that bought Cingular/ATT, and Sprint/Nextel. They 
aren't Bell Operating Companies. They are really big, mostly unchecked 
mega-telcos. RBMTs.. :-)


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-24 Thread Matt Liotta

Tom DeReggi wrote:

No I am not. I am asking you to tell me what you know, so I don't have 
to waste time replicating your research.
Thats the purpose of this list, to exchange knowledge and data. Not 
just making claims, but disclosing why.


I recall in an earlier email you making claims without disclosing why. 
Are we going to debate the debate or mesh?



I never suggest that. And Neither am I.
But no, I do not own a city wide MESH network. I decided against MESH, 
which is why my opinion is biased against MESH.
I can count the total ISPs on one hand that have completed that task 
as of today.
Maybe two Muni's that had been legally allowed to proceed doing a 
large public network.

So my experience level does not lessen my point of view.

Why does the mesh have to be city wide? We haven't nor will we do a city 
wide mesh. We believe mesh is only appropriate in certain pockets of 
geography that allow the economics of mesh to exceed that of P2MP.


Of course you do. Just like most WISPs do. I can't count how many 
single unit Mesh system we had sent to evaluate. Its likely you did 
the same.


We don't do single unit mesh evaluations. What's the point? You can't 
really test a mesh with just a single unit.


As a router operating system manufacturer with protocol level coding 
experience, (but never went to market), we also have a great deal of 
talent on staff, to investigate the trade offs of various 
technologies.  But you have to understand, that sooner or later a WISP 
needs to put the science projects aside, and start making sales, and 
they don't always have time to keep up to date on every latest and 
greatest daily enhancements to a technology, when they've decided on a 
different path to follow. I really don't have time to evaluate every 
manufacturers' Mesh product on a weekly basis to prove right or wrong 
their latest theories in their field.


I am not referring to some science project. We have active mesh 
deployments existing in the field now. Additionally, we are starting 
work next week on two more. One is a Tropos-based mesh, while the other 
is going to be built using some pre-release gear. The later is a mixed 
use development spanning hundreds of acres. That is the kind of scale we 
use to test mesh technology.



It doesn't appear you have done nearly the research we have
 and it doesn't appear you have any significant mesh deployments.


This is NOT a competition to prove who is the smarter technician and 
network designer. I do not claim to be Grand Master MESH. But I am 
more than qualified to carry on intelligent debate on the pros and 
cons of various routing and wireless technologies.


I'm not competing; just waiting for the intelligent debate to begin. You 
have made statements against mesh, but haven't made a single technical 
argument that was backed up by facts, research, or field experience.


I don't disagree with that definition. And technically in the 
dictionary, if it had to be defined, that could be it.  But I feel 
MESH is more of a mindset than a definition.  In practicality and real 
world, that MESH definition is two broad to cover all the many ways of 
implementing MESH. That definition does not define why someone would 
benefit from usingthe technology. I look at MESH as a concept of how 
to better gain coverage to a large number of people and/or 
geographical area, when Line-of-sight to a central or common sources 
are frequently obstructed, which typically requires more radios, 
installed closer togeather, and a method to manage their 
relationships, apposed to defining the way nodes communicate.


You are overloading the term mesh then. You can't take an accepted 
industry term and twist it to mean something else. Mesh is a network 
architecture that is more heavily used in wireline networks than 
wireless networks yet you want to suggest mesh has something to do with 
coverage. Each node in a mesh or each basestation in a P2MP system has 
an associated coverage area. Given a mesh node operating in the same 
spectrum and power output as a P2MP system you would expect a similar 
coverage because the coverage provided by the radios in question is a 
function of spectrum and power not network architecture.


Some people believed in John Henry, some believed in the Steam 
engine.  I agree that the ultimately a computer (or technology) has 
more potential to be better equipped to make those decissions. 
However, today is not that day yet, and I have more confidence in the 
engineer (human).  Not because the computer isn't capable, but because 
the engineer has not yet been proven capable to program the computer 
to be more capable.


Again I disagree. There are a number of large networks where a piece of 
software is used to configure network devices instead of humans 
configuring the devices directly. The same decisions are made by humans 
in either case, but in the former case the software can detect 
configuration issues before they are applied. Humans 

Re: [WISPA] commscope 3227 coax

2006-02-24 Thread Bob Moldashel

Mario Pommier wrote:


has anyone used Comm-scope Cable 3227 LMR400-type coax?
it is reliable?
Thanks.

Mario



We have used this with Times connectors without any issues...

-B-

--
Bob Moldashel
Lakeland Communications, Inc.
Broadband Deployment Group
1350 Lincoln Avenue
Holbrook, New York 11741 USA
800-479-9195 Toll Free US  Canada
631-585-5558 Fax
516-551-1131 Cell

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-24 Thread Tom DeReggi

Brad,

I agree. Our downtown Mesh versus Cell/Sector trials proved exactly that.
Our tests showed that the cities like DC could be better served with 
Cell/Sector models more effectively.
As a matter of fact, Alvarion product, appeared to be well equiped for that 
task.
I think projects like Phili's will bring a rude awakening. I can't prove 
that, but there is no reason for me to.

Thats the point of modelling. So you can pre-dict BEFORE you spend.
Its the Muni's budget to pay for, to find the true answer, not mine.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Brad Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 2:49 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment


Tom, IMHO mesh is great for lighting up downtown and city parks etc. but 
it

has yet to prove itself in a large deployment with 1,000's of customers or
1,000's of nodes deployed. I too have first hand experience backhauling
several mesh projects and the mesh edge so far has not been easy at all.
Here in Northeast USA 15 mesh nodes per square miles doesn't even come 
close

to what's needed. I've also found that implementing mesh in major metro
areas, where there are already 1,000's of wifi access points, shrinks
coverage models and can turn a well intentioned response to an RFP
laughable. I believe Philadelphia projects 70k users in 5 years on 3900 
mesh

nodes backhauled by Canopy. We'll see.

I'd love to see a comparison of our BreezeAccess VL with one mile centers
and our high powered DS11 on the edge in Anytown USA vs mesh. I'm working 
on

a few of my guys to do such a test so stay tuned.

What it comes down to is the fact that Matt may have just the right 
terrain
and noise floor without the traffic that some of these larger projects 
will
get hammered with so it works for his company. Mesh is a tool for a 
certain

job just like other gear. But I don't believe mesh should be construed as
broadband for the masses in any major metro area. Brad




-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 2:28 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment


Matt,

I think you are misinterpretting my comments. Don't read more in to them
than are there.
I am in no way attacking the validity of your experience or comments. I'm
simply asking for more detail, so that I can learn from your experience.

--
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] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-24 Thread Tom DeReggi

Matt,


I'm not competing; just waiting for the intelligent debate to begin.


I don't mind being challenged, I don't mind being out thought, and I don't 
mind being beat.
I sometimes even purposely hypothetically support the minority side, to 
spark intelligent debate on the other side.
But I do not like being insulted. Its comments like yours above that I find 
insulting.


I have no interest in debating further with you on this topic at this time.
I got better things to do.

but haven't made a single technical argument that was backed up by facts, 
research, or field experience.


I'm not sure that you have either.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-24 Thread Lonnie Nunweiler
Tom, what if you could take the Cell/Sector system and add some
routing that determined when a path had stopped and chose another one.

You have controlled this by your choice of units to make those cross
connections and really all that is happening is that the mesh routing
is constantly testing to see if it needs to try another route.

We used to do this manually and what a pain it was.  This new routing
does what I used to do, except it does not sleep, have bathroom breaks
or go out for lunch.  You can assign weights to connections and force
your chosen route to get used, at least until it goes down, which
hopefully never happens, but if and when it does you are covered with
your alternate path.

What is so terrible about that?

Lonnie

On 2/24/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Brad,

  I agree. Our downtown Mesh versus Cell/Sector trials proved exactly that.
 Our tests showed that the cities like DC could be better served with
 Cell/Sector models more effectively.
 As a matter of fact, Alvarion product, appeared to be well equiped for that
 task.
 I think projects like Phili's will bring a rude awakening. I can't prove
 that, but there is no reason for me to.
 Thats the point of modelling. So you can pre-dict BEFORE you spend.
 Its the Muni's budget to pay for, to find the true answer, not mine.

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


 - Original Message -
 From: Brad Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 2:49 PM
 Subject: RE: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment


  Tom, IMHO mesh is great for lighting up downtown and city parks etc. but
  it
  has yet to prove itself in a large deployment with 1,000's of customers or
  1,000's of nodes deployed. I too have first hand experience backhauling
  several mesh projects and the mesh edge so far has not been easy at all.
  Here in Northeast USA 15 mesh nodes per square miles doesn't even come
  close
  to what's needed. I've also found that implementing mesh in major metro
  areas, where there are already 1,000's of wifi access points, shrinks
  coverage models and can turn a well intentioned response to an RFP
  laughable. I believe Philadelphia projects 70k users in 5 years on 3900
  mesh
  nodes backhauled by Canopy. We'll see.
 
  I'd love to see a comparison of our BreezeAccess VL with one mile centers
  and our high powered DS11 on the edge in Anytown USA vs mesh. I'm working
  on
  a few of my guys to do such a test so stay tuned.
 
  What it comes down to is the fact that Matt may have just the right
  terrain
  and noise floor without the traffic that some of these larger projects
  will
  get hammered with so it works for his company. Mesh is a tool for a
  certain
  job just like other gear. But I don't believe mesh should be construed as
  broadband for the masses in any major metro area. Brad
 
 
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 2:28 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
 
 
  Matt,
 
  I think you are misinterpretting my comments. Don't read more in to them
  than are there.
  I am in no way attacking the validity of your experience or comments. I'm
  simply asking for more detail, so that I can learn from your experience.
 
  --
  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/



--
Lonnie Nunweiler
Valemount Networks Corporation
http://www.star-os.com/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Best Network Card

2006-02-24 Thread Jenco Wireless
Anyone have a good source for these ??


Thanks,

Brad H

On 1/29/06, Mark Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
Definately the Intel EtherExpress Pro.
Mark NashNetwork EngineerUnwiredOnline.Net350 Holly StreetJunction City, OR 97448http://www.uwol.net
541-998-541-998-5599 fax


- Original Message - 
From: Ron Wallace 

To: WISP ; 
WISPA ; isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com 
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 9:15 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Best Network Card

To All,

What is the most reliable Network card, I have been using 3com 905c, for my MT server, they are discontinued. What would you all recommend? 

I don't want to have to buy 5 cheap ones and keep replacing till I get one that works, I've been changing-out a lot of gear this winter. Bad choices on my part. Another story, another time.

Ron Wallace Hahnron, Inc. 220 S. Jackson Dt. Addison, MI 49220 Phone: (517)547-8410 Mobile: (517)605-4542 e-mail: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 




-- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

--WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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