[WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread George

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

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

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread chris cooper
$173K per mile build out cost?  Somebody just bought a new boat..

c

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of George
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:08 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

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

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

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



-- 
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Matt Liotta

I'll go ahead and predict that San Francisco will be a disaster.

-Matt

Jack Unger wrote:

Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni problems 
that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be done 
correctly and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to play a 
positive role in proper network design and operation however most muni 
networks are incorrectly designed by people with limited wireless 
experience (yes, that even includes some mesh network vendors) which 
will lead to network failure, waste of taxpayer money, and possible 
loss of jobs on the part of the city IT folks (not to mention the 
elected officials) who backed the networks without first learning 
about how wireless technology really works.

  jack

George wrote:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

George





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread George
I am doubting that wisps can actually accomadate the muni in most 
situations, unless they are closely involved with the design of the 
network, Talking spectrum use here.


As for going along with free muni wifi, How is a wisp going to operate 
if a muni is offering for free or at cut rate pricing?
And how are they going to expand if the spectrum is used up all over the 
place with unlicensed omni's on every corner.


George

Jack Unger wrote:
Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni problems 
that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be done correctly 
and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to play a positive 
role in proper network design and operation however most muni networks 
are incorrectly designed by people with limited wireless experience 
(yes, that even includes some mesh network vendors) which will lead to 
network failure, waste of taxpayer money, and possible loss of jobs on 
the part of the city IT folks (not to mention the elected officials) who 
backed the networks without first learning about how wireless technology 
really works.

  jack

George wrote:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

George





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread John J. Thomas
I don't know what equipment they are using, but Cisco AP1500's (mesh) are 
abnout $3700 each and Cisco recommends 18-20 per square mile. Thats $74,000 for 
the boxes plus antennas, mounts, POE and install.

John


-Original Message-
From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:26 AM
To: ''WISPA General List''
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

$173K per mile build out cost?  Somebody just bought a new boat..

c

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of George
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:08 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

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

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

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



--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread John J. Thomas
You mean it's not already :-)

John


-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:36 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

I'll go ahead and predict that San Francisco will be a disaster.

-Matt

Jack Unger wrote:

 Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni problems 
 that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be done 
 correctly and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to play a 
 positive role in proper network design and operation however most muni 
 networks are incorrectly designed by people with limited wireless 
 experience (yes, that even includes some mesh network vendors) which 
 will lead to network failure, waste of taxpayer money, and possible 
 loss of jobs on the part of the city IT folks (not to mention the 
 elected officials) who backed the networks without first learning 
 about how wireless technology really works.
   jack

 George wrote:

 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

 I am not a fan of muni wireless.

 George



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Jack Unger

George,

Just a few brief responses and ideas (I'm getting ready to go flying 
across the country again).


1. Design - Yes, local WISPs must be allowed to participate in the 
network design for the reason you mention. Spectrum must be managed to 
avoid both interfering with the WISPs operation and to avoid the WISP 
interfering with the muni network. One area of cooperation is to have 
the WISP backhaul the muni access points.


2. The muni network should never promise free access for everyone 
(residential and business). The muni access should be limited to public 
areas, visitor use, and (possibly) as a backup (not primary) 
communications media for public safety workers in times of emergency. 
Muni networks (IMHO) should not be used to try to replace traditional 
business Internet access which for-profit ISPs and WISPs are already 
supplying.


3. WISPs must take the lead in educating their cities government 
officials about how wireless really works and the limitations of muni 
networks that the mesh equipment vendors avoid mentioning (like 
interference with existing wireless networks, self-interference from too 
many omnis on every corner, limited throughput capability, etc.). WISPs 
who just wait for the muni network to fail (and fail they will) are 
asking to be put out of business by well-meaning but 
wirelessly-uneducated City officials and IT personnel.


WISPs must do their best to play a positive role or risk loss of their 
business. When cities and WISPs both lose, guess who wins???


ATT wins and we all know that is not a fair, just, or beneficial 
outcome for anybody but ATT.

   jack


George wrote:

I am doubting that wisps can actually accomadate the muni in most 
situations, unless they are closely involved with the design of the 
network, Talking spectrum use here.


As for going along with free muni wifi, How is a wisp going to operate 
if a muni is offering for free or at cut rate pricing?
And how are they going to expand if the spectrum is used up all over the 
place with unlicensed omni's on every corner.


George

Jack Unger wrote:

Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni problems 
that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be done 
correctly and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to play a 
positive role in proper network design and operation however most muni 
networks are incorrectly designed by people with limited wireless 
experience (yes, that even includes some mesh network vendors) which 
will lead to network failure, waste of taxpayer money, and possible 
loss of jobs on the part of the city IT folks (not to mention the 
elected officials) who backed the networks without first learning 
about how wireless technology really works.

  jack

George wrote:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

George








--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Our next WISP Workshops are April 12-13 and April 26-27
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Brian Webster
Jack,
I hate to say it but didn't we say I told you so There is just 
not
enough spectrum to design networks like this to work with anything but
dedicated CPE devices with outdoor antennas. Simply flooding an area with
more signal to let laptops inside a house work will not solve the problem.
It just creates more noise on already maxed out spectrum. I really wish the
vendors and project stalwarts would admit this is a problem with these
networks and not gloss it over. Self interference and outside interference
are always going to be huge problems in these muni-networks. Everyone trying
to build on the fact that off the shelf consumer devices can access this
network will be the downfall. Wi-fi was never designed for a massive outdoor
deployment such as this and when you try to make up for the fact that you do
not have control over the CPE when it comes to proper RF planning you are
doomed to failure. Just my 2 cents.



Thank You,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com http://www.wirelessmapping.com


-Original Message-
From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:29 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes


Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni problems
that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be done correctly
and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to play a positive
role in proper network design and operation however most muni networks
are incorrectly designed by people with limited wireless experience
(yes, that even includes some mesh network vendors) which will lead to
network failure, waste of taxpayer money, and possible loss of jobs on
the part of the city IT folks (not to mention the elected officials) who
backed the networks without first learning about how wireless technology
really works.
   jack

George wrote:
 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

 I am not a fan of muni wireless.

 George

--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Our next WISP Workshops are April 12-13 and April 26-27
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Joe Laura
Same thing is happening here in New Orleans. I did talk to the city before
it was designed but when I told them that it would be impossible for every
houshold to pop open a laptop in their desired room the door was slammed
shut. They did not want to hear this. I built a small mesh out downtown just
for kicks a couple of years ago. Took my time and designed it the best it
could be. These guys that do not know the technology get this vision to do
whats impossible.
Superior Wireless
New Orleans,La.
www.superior1.com
- Original Message -
From: Brian Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:10 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes


 Jack,
 I hate to say it but didn't we say I told you so There is just not
 enough spectrum to design networks like this to work with anything but
 dedicated CPE devices with outdoor antennas. Simply flooding an area with
 more signal to let laptops inside a house work will not solve the problem.
 It just creates more noise on already maxed out spectrum. I really wish
the
 vendors and project stalwarts would admit this is a problem with these
 networks and not gloss it over. Self interference and outside interference
 are always going to be huge problems in these muni-networks. Everyone
trying
 to build on the fact that off the shelf consumer devices can access this
 network will be the downfall. Wi-fi was never designed for a massive
outdoor
 deployment such as this and when you try to make up for the fact that you
do
 not have control over the CPE when it comes to proper RF planning you are
 doomed to failure. Just my 2 cents.



 Thank You,
 Brian Webster
 www.wirelessmapping.com http://www.wirelessmapping.com


 -Original Message-
 From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:29 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes


 Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni problems
 that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be done correctly
 and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to play a positive
 role in proper network design and operation however most muni networks
 are incorrectly designed by people with limited wireless experience
 (yes, that even includes some mesh network vendors) which will lead to
 network failure, waste of taxpayer money, and possible loss of jobs on
 the part of the city IT folks (not to mention the elected officials) who
 backed the networks without first learning about how wireless technology
 really works.
jack

 George wrote:
  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups
 
  I am not a fan of muni wireless.
 
  George

 --
 Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
 Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
 True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
 Our next WISP Workshops are April 12-13 and April 26-27
 Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread John J. Thomas
inline...
-Original Message-
From: George [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:40 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

I am doubting that wisps can actually accomadate the muni in most 
situations, unless they are closely involved with the design of the 
network, Talking spectrum use here.

First off, the WISPs have to have the guts to talk to the city. Many simply 
refuse to do so, and are probably going to get the Muni WiFi shoved down their 
throats.

Second, the cities are mostly going to use 2.4 GHz for access and 5.7-5.8 GHz 
for backhauls. WISP's will need to use 5.25-5.25 GHz and 900 MHz.



As for going along with free muni wifi, How is a wisp going to operate 
if a muni is offering for free or at cut rate pricing?

In a word, service. The city will only be offering WiFi access-period. They 
won't be going out to peoples houses and doing installs, fixing virii, doing 
firewalls, etc.



And how are they going to expand if the spectrum is used up all over the 
place with unlicensed omni's on every corner.

George

Jack Unger wrote:
 Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni problems 
 that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be done correctly 
 and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to play a positive 
 role in proper network design and operation however most muni networks 
 are incorrectly designed by people with limited wireless experience 
 (yes, that even includes some mesh network vendors) which will lead to 
 network failure, waste of taxpayer money, and possible loss of jobs on 
 the part of the city IT folks (not to mention the elected officials) who 
 backed the networks without first learning about how wireless technology 
 really works.
   jack
 
 George wrote:
 
 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

 I am not a fan of muni wireless.

 George
 
 

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181

roflol

The city is selling signal boosters (I read that as amps) to anyone that 
wants them for $170?


Oh man, this deployment is gonna come CRASHING down.  Hard.

It's really too bad these people are too ignorant, stubborn or just plain 
stupid to call any of us in to help.


sigh

Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - 
From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:07 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

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

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

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



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread George

John J. Thomas wrote:

inline...




First off, the WISPs have to have the guts to talk to the city. Many simply 
refuse to do so, and are probably going to get the Muni WiFi shoved down their 
throats.



I don't want to turn this into a battle of ideals.

But how many local wisps have been chosen to date?
I bet Joe laura in NO got passed over without much consideration to him.
Joe is on this list, let him chime in here.


Second, the cities are mostly going to use 2.4 GHz for access and 5.7-5.8 GHz 
for backhauls. WISP's will need to use 5.25-5.25 GHz and 900 MHz.



Almost every wisp today is using 2.4 to reach the customer and 5 gig for 
infrastructure and high end customers. Are you saying that wisps have to 
move off the existing spectrum and replace their equipment?




In a word, service. The city will only be offering WiFi access-period. They 
won't be going out to peoples houses and doing installs, fixing virii, doing 
firewalls, etc.



Here is a scenario, if a potential customer who is on the fence while 
deciding to go to broadband was to hear that a new muni free wifi system 
is going to come on line or he can buy now with his local wisp, which 
choice is the average consumer going to make?


The support scenario happens long after the fact.

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

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
That one's easy.  They have a $400,000 per year budget.  The city should 
contract with the WISP for that.


Sheesh, 15 square miles.  I could do that with my eyes closed!

Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - 
From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:40 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes


I am doubting that wisps can actually accomadate the muni in most 
situations, unless they are closely involved with the design of the 
network, Talking spectrum use here.


As for going along with free muni wifi, How is a wisp going to operate if 
a muni is offering for free or at cut rate pricing?
And how are they going to expand if the spectrum is used up all over the 
place with unlicensed omni's on every corner.


George

Jack Unger wrote:
Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni problems 
that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be done correctly 
and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to play a positive role 
in proper network design and operation however most muni networks are 
incorrectly designed by people with limited wireless experience (yes, 
that even includes some mesh network vendors) which will lead to network 
failure, waste of taxpayer money, and possible loss of jobs on the part 
of the city IT folks (not to mention the elected officials) who backed 
the networks without first learning about how wireless technology really 
works.

  jack

George wrote:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

George





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Matt Liotta
No, they are selling higher powered CPE devices that act as a bridge 
connecting to the muni network and then act as a local AP to help lower 
powered laptops effectively use the service.


-Matt

Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:


roflol

The city is selling signal boosters (I read that as amps) to anyone 
that wants them for $170?


Oh man, this deployment is gonna come CRASHING down.  Hard.

It's really too bad these people are too ignorant, stubborn or just 
plain stupid to call any of us in to help.


sigh

Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:07 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

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

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

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





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Travis Johnson
You guys are all missing the point. If they contract with the local 
WISP, they don't get to create new jobs for the muni... instead, they 
are just helping a local business grow with local tax money.


Welcome to politics in the wireless arena. :(

Travis
Microserv

Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:

That one's easy.  They have a $400,000 per year budget.  The city 
should contract with the WISP for that.


Sheesh, 15 square miles.  I could do that with my eyes closed!

Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:40 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes


I am doubting that wisps can actually accomadate the muni in most 
situations, unless they are closely involved with the design of the 
network, Talking spectrum use here.


As for going along with free muni wifi, How is a wisp going to 
operate if a muni is offering for free or at cut rate pricing?
And how are they going to expand if the spectrum is used up all over 
the place with unlicensed omni's on every corner.


George

Jack Unger wrote:

Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni 
problems that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be 
done correctly and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to 
play a positive role in proper network design and operation however 
most muni networks are incorrectly designed by people with limited 
wireless experience (yes, that even includes some mesh network 
vendors) which will lead to network failure, waste of taxpayer 
money, and possible loss of jobs on the part of the city IT folks 
(not to mention the elected officials) who backed the networks 
without first learning about how wireless technology really works.

  jack

George wrote:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

George






--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] Dual Channel Bonded Wireless Internet System - Closer?

2006-04-24 Thread Robert Kim Wireless Internet Advisor
Anybody know how to bond 2 wireless internet channels ... ie.. verizon
+ cingular hsdpa? we're working on getting 240kbps... instead of
120kbps per card / network for a govt client. - bob
--
Robert Q Kim, Wireless Internet Advisor
http://wireless-internet-coverage.blogspot.com
http://evdo-coverage.com
2611 S. Pacific Coast Highway 101
Suite 203
Cardiff by the Sea, CA 92007
206 984 0880
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Jeffrey Thomas
Then there are companies like airmatrix that charge less than 1k per node.
The key with mesh is density, and many mesh startup's fail because they
Underbuild their networks.

-

Jeff



On 4/24/06 7:53 AM, John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I don't know what equipment they are using, but Cisco AP1500's (mesh) are
 abnout $3700 each and Cisco recommends 18-20 per square mile. Thats $74,000
 for the boxes plus antennas, mounts, POE and install.
 
 John
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:26 AM
 To: ''WISPA General List''
 Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
 
 $173K per mile build out cost?  Somebody just bought a new boat..
 
 c
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of George
 Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:08 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
 
 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups
 
 I am not a fan of muni wireless.
 
 George
 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 
 
 --
 Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
 Checked by AVG Free Edition.
 Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006
 
 
 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 
 
 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Dawn DiPietro

All,

http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2005/050831a.html

   As part of the HP Metro-scale Wi-Fi solution, HP forged an alliance 
with Tropos Networks and Aptilo Networks to help large communities of 
all kinds - cities,
   government agencies, large medical center and universities - achieve 
significant new wireless capabilities, including enhanced collaboration 
and simplified secure
   access control through a standard high-speed Wi-Fi network. The 
Franklin and St. Cloud networks use products from Tropos and Aptilo as 
part of their overall

   network solutions.

Regards,

Dawn DiPietro




John J. Thomas wrote:

I don't know what equipment they are using, but Cisco AP1500's (mesh) are abnout $3700 each and Cisco recommends 18-20 per square mile. Thats $74,000 for the boxes plus antennas, mounts, POE and install. 


John

 


---
---

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread chris cooper
Why not just buy the cards, boards, antennas and make a few yourself?

c

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:46 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

Then there are companies like airmatrix that charge less than 1k per
node.
The key with mesh is density, and many mesh startup's fail because they
Underbuild their networks.

-

Jeff



On 4/24/06 7:53 AM, John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I don't know what equipment they are using, but Cisco AP1500's (mesh)
are
 abnout $3700 each and Cisco recommends 18-20 per square mile. Thats
$74,000
 for the boxes plus antennas, mounts, POE and install.
 
 John
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:26 AM
 To: ''WISPA General List''
 Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
 
 $173K per mile build out cost?  Somebody just bought a new boat..
 
 c
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
 Behalf Of George
 Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:08 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
 
 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups
 
 I am not a fan of muni wireless.
 
 George
 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 
 
 --
 Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
 Checked by AVG Free Edition.
 Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date:
4/14/2006
 
 
 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 
 
 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



-- 
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Jack Unger

Dawn,

Thanks for posting the St. Cloud PepLink and HP info.

Using standard CPE (PePLink)is very good but using Tropos nodes is very, 
very bad. Very bad because they only have one single 2.4 GHz radio so 
after 2 or 3 hops, all the throughput capability is gone not to mention 
that the interference level from having all the access and backhaul 
packets colliding on 2.4 GHz (along with any WISP and other 2.4 GHz 
network packets) will slow all the networks (muni and WISP) down 
further. I hate to finger anyone but Tropos' stubborn refusal or 
inability (anyone at Tropos listening???) to produce a 2-band mesh node 
is going to doom them to failure along with any big city that deploys 
their nodes without an extremely efficient point-to-multipoint backbone 
design on 5 GHz.


jack


Dawn DiPietro wrote:


http://www.peplink.com/060306.php

Date: March 7, 2006*
PePLink announces as the official Citywide Wireless CPE provider for 
City of St. Cloud in Florida  *


*Hong Kong, Mar 7, 2006 - *PePLink, a leader in citywide WiFi wireless 
broadband devices today announced the City of St. Cloud, FL, a suburb of 
Orlando, has chosen PePLink to be the official wireless CPE provider for 
the Cyber Spot, the City's 100% free citywide high-speed wireless 
Internet service.


With a reliable, secure, ease of use wireless CPE - PePLink Surf, every 
citizen or business in the city of St. Cloud can connect to the citywide 
wireless network at a high speed. The CPE greatly enhances the 
throughput and reliability of both up and down link compared with a 
wireless-enabled computer desktop or notebook computer.


The simple true plug and play nature of the PePLink Surf helps the 
citizens in St. Cloud to bring the wireless signal indoors with ease. At 
the same time, the PePLink Surf units can be remotely managed, monitored 
and provisioned by PePLink's carrier-grade management and reporting 
solution, PCMS (or PePLink Centralized Management System). This can 
ensure a scalable and rapid rollout of the wireless systems within a 
short period of time. This eliminates an onsite installation charge.


Being chosen by City of St. Cloud has further endorsed our capability 
to offer reliable wireless solutions to municipal wireless networks 
built with mesh network technology, said Alex Chan, Managing Director 
of PePLink. PePLink Surf together with PCMS is the complete solution 
specifically designed for today's citywide wireless networks.


PePLink Surf series consists of Surf 200BG and Surf 400BG. For more 
information on PePLink Surf series, please visit http://www.peplink.com 
http://www.peplink.com/.





Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:


roflol

The city is selling signal boosters (I read that as amps) to anyone 
that wants them for $170?


Oh man, this deployment is gonna come CRASHING down.  Hard.

It's really too bad these people are too ignorant, stubborn or just 
plain stupid to call any of us in to help.


sigh

Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:07 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

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

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

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





---
---



--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Our next WISP Workshops are April 12-13 and April 26-27
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Matt Liotta
In recent post I explained that here in Atlanta you can only use a 
single 2.4 channel because of the noise floor. How is a multi-band mesh 
node going to work?


Maybe there is a reason the big muni projects keep selecting Tropos.

-Matt

Jack Unger wrote:


Dawn,

Thanks for posting the St. Cloud PepLink and HP info.

Using standard CPE (PePLink)is very good but using Tropos nodes is 
very, very bad. Very bad because they only have one single 2.4 GHz 
radio so after 2 or 3 hops, all the throughput capability is gone not 
to mention that the interference level from having all the access and 
backhaul packets colliding on 2.4 GHz (along with any WISP and other 
2.4 GHz network packets) will slow all the networks (muni and WISP) 
down further. I hate to finger anyone but Tropos' stubborn refusal 
or inability (anyone at Tropos listening???) to produce a 2-band mesh 
node is going to doom them to failure along with any big city that 
deploys their nodes without an extremely efficient point-to-multipoint 
backbone design on 5 GHz.


jack


Dawn DiPietro wrote:


http://www.peplink.com/060306.php

Date: March 7, 2006*
PePLink announces as the official Citywide Wireless CPE provider for 
City of St. Cloud in Florida  *


*Hong Kong, Mar 7, 2006 - *PePLink, a leader in citywide WiFi 
wireless broadband devices today announced the City of St. Cloud, FL, 
a suburb of Orlando, has chosen PePLink to be the official wireless 
CPE provider for the Cyber Spot, the City's 100% free citywide 
high-speed wireless Internet service.


With a reliable, secure, ease of use wireless CPE - PePLink Surf, 
every citizen or business in the city of St. Cloud can connect to the 
citywide wireless network at a high speed. The CPE greatly enhances 
the throughput and reliability of both up and down link compared with 
a wireless-enabled computer desktop or notebook computer.


The simple true plug and play nature of the PePLink Surf helps the 
citizens in St. Cloud to bring the wireless signal indoors with ease. 
At the same time, the PePLink Surf units can be remotely managed, 
monitored and provisioned by PePLink's carrier-grade management and 
reporting solution, PCMS (or PePLink Centralized Management System). 
This can ensure a scalable and rapid rollout of the wireless systems 
within a short period of time. This eliminates an onsite installation 
charge.


Being chosen by City of St. Cloud has further endorsed our 
capability to offer reliable wireless solutions to municipal wireless 
networks built with mesh network technology, said Alex Chan, 
Managing Director of PePLink. PePLink Surf together with PCMS is the 
complete solution specifically designed for today's citywide wireless 
networks.


PePLink Surf series consists of Surf 200BG and Surf 400BG. For more 
information on PePLink Surf series, please visit 
http://www.peplink.com http://www.peplink.com/.





Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:


roflol

The city is selling signal boosters (I read that as amps) to 
anyone that wants them for $170?


Oh man, this deployment is gonna come CRASHING down.  Hard.

It's really too bad these people are too ignorant, stubborn or just 
plain stupid to call any of us in to help.


sigh

Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own 
wisp!

64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:07 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

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

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

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





---
---





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Brian Webster
 muniwireless
efforts.   The munis are our most powerful allies right now, and we
should be working WITH them, not against them.

Matt Larsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


George wrote:
 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

 I am not a fan of muni wireless.

 George

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] WISP/Muni Partnerships:

2006-04-24 Thread Sascha Meinrath

Matt Larsen Wrote:
 Every WISPA member should be watching their area diligently for
 muniwireless opportunities in their area, and working hard to get in on
 the ground floor...WISPs should be taking a proactive, positive stance toward 
 muniwireless efforts.   The munis are our most powerful allies right now, and 
 we should be working WITH them, not against them.


Hear, hear!  I'm relatively agnostic about who provides the network 
infrastructure, I just want to see the best services for end-users.  And 
sometimes that means private organizations, and sometimes that means municipal 
owners, and often it means public-private partnerships.  What's really important 
is that we be proactive in getting our foot in the door when municipal networks 
are on the table -- because there's a natural synergy that we could be tapping 
into that would benefit us greatly.


--Sascha

--
Sascha Meinrath
Policy Analyst*  Project Coordinator  *  President
Free Press   *** CUWiN   *** Acorn Active Media
www.freepress.net *  www.cuwireless.net   *  www.acornactivemedia.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] UL WiMAX update

2006-04-24 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181

Rich, with all due respect, your idea has a REALLY big flaw in it.

Once government sets a standard, it's going to be a very long time before 
anything new comes along.


Pure Darwinism is bad in that it requires too much capital investment.

No Darwinism (government standards, really that's what the old Ma Bell 
system in essence was) is even worse.


The USA isn't quickly adapting broadband for several reasons.  One is that 
the consumer just doesn't value it enough.  If broadband was available at 
$75 per connection instead of $30 there would be much more of it out there. 
But people aren't willing (in large enough numbers) to pay more for 
broadband than for dialup or no internet at all.


In other countries they've typically had comparatively substandard networks. 
They are now building to catch up and naturally that building is with the 
latest gear.  Here we have cheap access to phones, cell phones, TV, etc. 
That's not always the case elsewhere.


It's funny.  I thought that getting the local businesses on broadband would 
help me sell more of it.  People would use it at work and want it at home 
too right?  Wrong.  They just do all of their stuff at work and sometimes 
cancel even the dialup!


Market forces are best left alone.  But steps do need to be taken to make 
sure that the playing field is level and that practical considerations (like 
roi) are not totally ignored.


laters,
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - 
From: Rich Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update


It's quite unfortunate IMO but I've concluded that this is a typically 
American problem.  In America the courts broke up the Bell system thinking 
that it'd be better for the average American to have local phone companies 
competing with each other.  Only here in America does the FCC license any 
technology the carriers wishes to deploy, resulting in them competing with 
each other (whatever technology cellphone you carry, there are more towers 
of different technology that any given cellphone can't access compared to 
those it).  Europe learned almost 2 decades ago that to compete with the 
United States they needed to mandate compatible technologies that would 
insure interoperable services to users (things like GSM).


For the benefit of all, I wish the FCC would open any/all new bands (3.6, 
5.4 thru 5.7, etc) mandating a compatible technical solution, or at 
minimum one that required all equipment to play nice.


Nobody wants to through away the investment that they have made already, 
and as that investment increases, it gets harder.


Right.  Too much of a hardship to change rules in bands once deployed. 
But all new bands should require compatability rules.  I just don't see 
our FCC seeing things this way.  There are too many that believe a 
free-for-all in the market serves the public best.  I don't agree.


Rich

- Original Message - 
From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update



Steve,

In theory, I fully agree with your view.

The problem is that theory does not always play out in the real world. 5 
years later, I still have 10 mbps gear, and very few places that can risk 
using faster gear. (although we are finding ways, such as getting higher 
power with PtP to use faster gear reliably, of course we are also wasting 
spectrum because channels used up with only some of the bandwdith being 
used, not being able to average its use over PtMP.)


The problem is that the longer the FCC waits to impose better rules, the 
harder it gets for the industry to accept the rules. Nobody wants to 
through away the investment that they have made already, and as that 
investment increases, it gets harder.


The problem with the rules as they are now, true Darwinism, is that it 
forces WISPs to be in competition with WISPs, instead of WISPs bandwdith 
togeather to be in competitions with other industry segments like Telcos 
and Cable companies.  And the inner struggle forces WISPS to be less 
competitive as an industry in the end.  This can not be a good thing for 
an industry, allthough it may be most ethical for evolutionists.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Steve Stroh [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 1:04 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update




Patrick:

I disagree that the market is (directly) rewarding survival of the
nastiest - it's rewarding systems that are designed to survive 

Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Jack Unger

Matt,

Tropos has done a very good job when it comes to powering their node 
from a wide variety of sources. Unfortunately their fatal flaw is to 
insistence on clinging to their single-radio design. This means their 
nodes will always be throughput-limited, latency-limited, 
self-interference limited, and 2.4 GHz spectrum polluters. Any power and 
rf-savvy WISP could design an equally power-versatile mesh node but make 
it multi-band.

   jack


Matt Liotta wrote:

A Tropos unit has a 1W transmitter, is capable of being powered via PoE 
or via AC delivered through standard outlets as well as a variety of 
photo-cell taps including high-voltage ones. When powered with AC, it is 
capable of providing PoE power out of its Ethernet ports supporting 
equipment from Motorola and Trango even though neither using standard 
PoE. It mounts like a dream, includes level bubbles for perfect 
orientation, and units can be slid into and out of place with only a 
single screw enabling nodes to be changed in less than 5 minutes. Quite 
simply, a Tropos unit is beautifully engineered.


Where can I find the parts to make the same thing in a single package?

-Matt

chris cooper wrote:


Why not just buy the cards, boards, antennas and make a few yourself?

c

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:46 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

Then there are companies like airmatrix that charge less than 1k per
node.
The key with mesh is density, and many mesh startup's fail because they
Underbuild their networks.

-

Jeff



On 4/24/06 7:53 AM, John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 


I don't know what equipment they are using, but Cisco AP1500's (mesh)
  


are
 


abnout $3700 each and Cisco recommends 18-20 per square mile. Thats
  


$74,000
 


for the boxes plus antennas, mounts, POE and install.

John


  


-Original Message-
From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:26 AM
To: ''WISPA General List''
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

$173K per mile build out cost?  Somebody just bought a new boat..

c

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



On
 


Behalf Of George
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:08 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

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

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

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



--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date:



4/14/2006
 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




 





--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Our next WISP Workshops are April 12-13 and April 26-27
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Brian Webster



 - Original Message - From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:07 AM
 Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes


 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

 I am not a fan of muni wireless.

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

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

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



 ---
 ---


--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Our next WISP Workshops are April 12-13 and April 26-27
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Jack Unger

Matt,

A multi-band mesh node does the backhaul on 5 GHz (sometimes with more 
than one 5 GHz radio). This reduces (but certainly doesn't eliminate) 
the 2.4 GHz self-interference and other-network-interference level.


The reason the big muni projects often select Tropos is that Tropos has 
the best marketing effort out there and has been in the game longer 
than most other mesh equipment vendors.


I predict it won't take too may big Tropos-based muni networks to fail 
before future big-city muni administrators will see the light and 
chose other, more throughput-capable mesh vendors.


jack


Matt Liotta wrote:

In recent post I explained that here in Atlanta you can only use a 
single 2.4 channel because of the noise floor. How is a multi-band mesh 
node going to work?


Maybe there is a reason the big muni projects keep selecting Tropos.

-Matt

Jack Unger wrote:


Dawn,

Thanks for posting the St. Cloud PepLink and HP info.

Using standard CPE (PePLink)is very good but using Tropos nodes is 
very, very bad. Very bad because they only have one single 2.4 GHz 
radio so after 2 or 3 hops, all the throughput capability is gone not 
to mention that the interference level from having all the access and 
backhaul packets colliding on 2.4 GHz (along with any WISP and other 
2.4 GHz network packets) will slow all the networks (muni and WISP) 
down further. I hate to finger anyone but Tropos' stubborn refusal 
or inability (anyone at Tropos listening???) to produce a 2-band mesh 
node is going to doom them to failure along with any big city that 
deploys their nodes without an extremely efficient point-to-multipoint 
backbone design on 5 GHz.


jack


Dawn DiPietro wrote:


http://www.peplink.com/060306.php

Date: March 7, 2006*
PePLink announces as the official Citywide Wireless CPE provider for 
City of St. Cloud in Florida  *


*Hong Kong, Mar 7, 2006 - *PePLink, a leader in citywide WiFi 
wireless broadband devices today announced the City of St. Cloud, FL, 
a suburb of Orlando, has chosen PePLink to be the official wireless 
CPE provider for the Cyber Spot, the City's 100% free citywide 
high-speed wireless Internet service.


With a reliable, secure, ease of use wireless CPE - PePLink Surf, 
every citizen or business in the city of St. Cloud can connect to the 
citywide wireless network at a high speed. The CPE greatly enhances 
the throughput and reliability of both up and down link compared with 
a wireless-enabled computer desktop or notebook computer.


The simple true plug and play nature of the PePLink Surf helps the 
citizens in St. Cloud to bring the wireless signal indoors with ease. 
At the same time, the PePLink Surf units can be remotely managed, 
monitored and provisioned by PePLink's carrier-grade management and 
reporting solution, PCMS (or PePLink Centralized Management System). 
This can ensure a scalable and rapid rollout of the wireless systems 
within a short period of time. This eliminates an onsite installation 
charge.


Being chosen by City of St. Cloud has further endorsed our 
capability to offer reliable wireless solutions to municipal wireless 
networks built with mesh network technology, said Alex Chan, 
Managing Director of PePLink. PePLink Surf together with PCMS is the 
complete solution specifically designed for today's citywide wireless 
networks.


PePLink Surf series consists of Surf 200BG and Surf 400BG. For more 
information on PePLink Surf series, please visit 
http://www.peplink.com http://www.peplink.com/.





Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:


roflol

The city is selling signal boosters (I read that as amps) to 
anyone that wants them for $170?


Oh man, this deployment is gonna come CRASHING down.  Hard.

It's really too bad these people are too ignorant, stubborn or just 
plain stupid to call any of us in to help.


sigh

Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own 
wisp!

64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:07 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

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

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

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





---
---







--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Our next WISP Workshops are April 12-13 and April 26-27
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227

Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Matt Liotta

Jack Unger wrote:

A multi-band mesh node does the backhaul on 5 GHz (sometimes with more 
than one 5 GHz radio). This reduces (but certainly doesn't eliminate) 
the 2.4 GHz self-interference and other-network-interference level.


You can't use 5 Ghz to go through trees here in Atlanta, so that won't 
help you. Multi-band mesh nodes simple don't work here.


-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Joe Laura
-2181 wrote:
 
  roflol
 
  The city is selling signal boosters (I read that as amps) to anyone
  that wants them for $170?
 
  Oh man, this deployment is gonna come CRASHING down.  Hard.
 
  It's really too bad these people are too ignorant, stubborn or just
  plain stupid to call any of us in to help.
 
  sigh
 
  Marlon
  (509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
  (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
  42846865 (icq)And I run my own
wisp!
  64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
  www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
  www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
 
 
 
  - Original Message - From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:07 AM
  Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
 
 
  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups
 
  I am not a fan of muni wireless.
 
  George
  --
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 
 
  ---
  ---
 

 --
 Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
 Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
 True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
 Our next WISP Workshops are April 12-13 and April 26-27
 Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Matt Liotta
 these people are too ignorant, stubborn or just
plain stupid to call any of us in to help.

sigh

Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:07 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes


 


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

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

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

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

   


---
---

   



--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Our next WISP Workshops are April 12-13 and April 26-27
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



 



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Jack Unger
Then the 5 GHz backhaul network must have antennas that are raised above 
the trees. Another option is to backhaul with city-owned fiber. 
Backhauling on 900 MHz is a possible third option. All it takes is rf 
knowledge, creativity, and cooperation.

 jack

Matt Liotta wrote:


Jack Unger wrote:

A multi-band mesh node does the backhaul on 5 GHz (sometimes with more 
than one 5 GHz radio). This reduces (but certainly doesn't eliminate) 
the 2.4 GHz self-interference and other-network-interference level.


You can't use 5 Ghz to go through trees here in Atlanta, so that won't 
help you. Multi-band mesh nodes simple don't work here.


-Matt



--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Our next WISP Workshops are April 12-13 and April 26-27
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Jack Unger
 desktop or notebook computer.

The simple true plug and play nature of the PePLink Surf helps the
citizens in St. Cloud to bring the wireless signal indoors with ease. At
the same time, the PePLink Surf units can be remotely managed, monitored
and provisioned by PePLink's carrier-grade management and reporting
solution, PCMS (or PePLink Centralized Management System). This can
ensure a scalable and rapid rollout of the wireless systems within a
short period of time. This eliminates an onsite installation charge.

Being chosen by City of St. Cloud has further endorsed our capability
to offer reliable wireless solutions to municipal wireless networks
built with mesh network technology, said Alex Chan, Managing Director
of PePLink. PePLink Surf together with PCMS is the complete solution
specifically designed for today's citywide wireless networks.

PePLink Surf series consists of Surf 200BG and Surf 400BG. For more
information on PePLink Surf series, please visit http://www.peplink.com
http://www.peplink.com/.




Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:

  


roflol

The city is selling signal boosters (I read that as amps) to anyone
that wants them for $170?

Oh man, this deployment is gonna come CRASHING down.  Hard.

It's really too bad these people are too ignorant, stubborn or just
plain stupid to call any of us in to help.

sigh

Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own 
wisp!

64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:07 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes





http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

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

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

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

  


---
---

  



--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Our next WISP Workshops are April 12-13 and April 26-27
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



 





--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Our next WISP Workshops are April 12-13 and April 26-27
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Matt Liotta
How do you raise the antennas above the trees without building really 
tall poles? Trees around here are 60-70ft.


City-owned fiber only exists in places with enough density that there 
aren't any trees to begin with. Residential areas generally have lots of 
trees and no reason for fiber runs.


900Mhz won't get you much throughput; certainly not enough to offer an 
alternative to DSL.


-Matt

Jack Unger wrote:

Then the 5 GHz backhaul network must have antennas that are raised 
above the trees. Another option is to backhaul with city-owned fiber. 
Backhauling on 900 MHz is a possible third option. All it takes is rf 
knowledge, creativity, and cooperation.

 jack

Matt Liotta wrote:


Jack Unger wrote:

A multi-band mesh node does the backhaul on 5 GHz (sometimes with 
more than one 5 GHz radio). This reduces (but certainly doesn't 
eliminate) the 2.4 GHz self-interference and 
other-network-interference level.


You can't use 5 Ghz to go through trees here in Atlanta, so that 
won't help you. Multi-band mesh nodes simple don't work here.


-Matt





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Jack Unger
OK Matt, being a creative person, you can then suggest the use of DSL 
for the backhaul...

 jack

Matt Liotta wrote:

How do you raise the antennas above the trees without building really 
tall poles? Trees around here are 60-70ft.


City-owned fiber only exists in places with enough density that there 
aren't any trees to begin with. Residential areas generally have lots of 
trees and no reason for fiber runs.


900Mhz won't get you much throughput; certainly not enough to offer an 
alternative to DSL.


-Matt

Jack Unger wrote:

Then the 5 GHz backhaul network must have antennas that are raised 
above the trees. Another option is to backhaul with city-owned fiber. 
Backhauling on 900 MHz is a possible third option. All it takes is rf 
knowledge, creativity, and cooperation.

 jack

Matt Liotta wrote:


Jack Unger wrote:

A multi-band mesh node does the backhaul on 5 GHz (sometimes with 
more than one 5 GHz radio). This reduces (but certainly doesn't 
eliminate) the 2.4 GHz self-interference and 
other-network-interference level.


You can't use 5 Ghz to go through trees here in Atlanta, so that 
won't help you. Multi-band mesh nodes simple don't work here.


-Matt







--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Our next WISP Workshops are April 12-13 and April 26-27
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread chris cooper
The SR9 cards might be interesting for this app...

chris

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 2:39 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

OK Matt, being a creative person, you can then suggest the use of DSL 
for the backhaul...
  jack

Matt Liotta wrote:

 How do you raise the antennas above the trees without building really 
 tall poles? Trees around here are 60-70ft.
 
 City-owned fiber only exists in places with enough density that there 
 aren't any trees to begin with. Residential areas generally have lots
of 
 trees and no reason for fiber runs.
 
 900Mhz won't get you much throughput; certainly not enough to offer an

 alternative to DSL.
 
 -Matt
 
 Jack Unger wrote:
 
 Then the 5 GHz backhaul network must have antennas that are raised 
 above the trees. Another option is to backhaul with city-owned fiber.

 Backhauling on 900 MHz is a possible third option. All it takes is rf

 knowledge, creativity, and cooperation.
  jack

 Matt Liotta wrote:

 Jack Unger wrote:

 A multi-band mesh node does the backhaul on 5 GHz (sometimes with 
 more than one 5 GHz radio). This reduces (but certainly doesn't 
 eliminate) the 2.4 GHz self-interference and 
 other-network-interference level.

 You can't use 5 Ghz to go through trees here in Atlanta, so that 
 won't help you. Multi-band mesh nodes simple don't work here.

 -Matt


 

-- 
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Our next WISP Workshops are April 12-13 and April 26-27
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



-- 
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Matt Liotta

Jack Unger wrote:

1. The attenuation between 2.4 GHz nodes is not enough to prevent each 
node from hearing multiple other nodes as noise (thus more packet 
retransmissions and more reduced throughtput). This requires 
understanding link budgets, signal-to-noise ratios, and receiver 
threshold specifications.


Luckily for us we happen to be a WISP that understands these issues. We 
have deployed several Tropos-based networks with sufficient attenuation 
between nodes.



2. Metricom is not a good comparison because:
a. They were frequency hoppers on 900 MHz.


Physics applies on all spectrum.

b. They promised low (128kbps and then 256kbps, if memory serves) 
throughput. This doesn't compare to today's expected throughput levels.


It was stated that the problems occurred for hams at 1200 baud.

c. They eventually went to a two-band node that backhauled on 2.4 GHz. 
so they could increase throughput.


Only in select areas; the vast majority of the network was single band.


d. Metricom then went out of business.


The network did work and it was profitable in a number of cities. The 
fact that there was a market bust or that company built more cities than 
they had cash flow to support isn't a technical concern.


Physics is still physics and companies need to but don't yet 
understand wireless physics. They need this understanding before 
bidding on muni projects and before they make these high-expectation, 
wireless-for-all, triple-play (voice, video, data) promises to public 
officials. Once a muni network is engineered incorrectly and deployed 
incorrectly, it may well take as much additional money to fix it (if 
it even can be fixed) as it took to deploy it in the first place.


Math is still math and companies need to but don't yet understand 
advanced mathematics. This generalization is just as accurate as your 
statement, but hopefully seems more absurd. Some companies understand 
wireless physics. Some of these same companies even deploy wireless 
networks that work. Some markets meet the correct criteria to have a 
muni Wi-Fi network that can be successful; some even exist today. How do 
any of these statements specify the success of muni Wi-Fi in general?


-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] 450' PoE 48v

2006-04-24 Thread Scott Reed




First, 450' is way too far for really reliable ethternet, if it is cat 5.

Voltage drops due to resistance in the wire.  Voltage = Current * Resistance.  Longer wire has more resistance.  You will need to increase the voltage of the power supply based on the current rating of the device(s) at the other end of the wire and the resistance of the wire you are using.


Scott Reed 


Owner 


NewWays 


Wireless Networking 


Network Design, Installation and Administration 


www.nwwnet.net 




-- Original Message 
---

From: Mark Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] 


To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 


Sent: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 11:25:08 -0700 


Subject: [WISPA] 450' PoE 48v 



 Hello...got a run of cat5 about 450' that is 

working but doesn't seem to be sufficiently powering the amplifier built into 

the antenna.  The device is a Terabeam EtherAnt-Turbo/LR (same as 

Proxim's Terastar EtherAnt/LR).  It works but SNR should be better.  

If I power the thing locally (25' of cat5) it works as it should, so I think it 

may be insufficient power.  


  

 It's got a 48v 0.4a power supply.  I know 
that 

it's far over spec for PoE...but specs were made up from engineers who have to 

play it safe for what they recommend.  So...any field answers to my 

dilemma?  Is more information 
needed?

  

 Perhaps a side question:  What drops over 

distance...volts or amps?  Please consider the non-electrically-experienced 

crowd.

  

 Thanks 
much.

 
 Mark Nash
 Network 

Engineer
 UnwiredOnline.Net
 350 Holly Street
 Junction 
City, OR 

97448
 http://www.uwol.net
 541-998-
 
541-998-5599 

fax

--- End of Original Message 
---






-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] 450' PoE 48v

2006-04-24 Thread Mark Nash



Thanks, Scott. So, increased voltage is 
something to try.

And your comment on the cat5 being too far...it was 
considered initially but the ethernet interface on these units is a 10mb/half 
duplex interface. My experience tells me that I can reliably do 10mb/half 
duplex ethernetwith 500 feet of cat5...going back to my old Novell CNE 
days when 10BaseT was the next greatest thing, replacing Token Ring  
Arcnet.
Mark NashNetwork EngineerUnwiredOnline.Net350 
Holly StreetJunction City, OR 97448http://www.uwol.net541-998-541-998-5599 
fax

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Scott Reed 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 11:54 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] 450' PoE 48v
  First, 450' is way too far for really reliable 
  ethternet, if it is cat 5. Voltage drops due to resistance in the 
  wire. Voltage = Current * Resistance. Longer wire has more 
  resistance. You will need to increase the voltage of the power supply 
  based on the current rating of the device(s) at the other end of the wire and 
  the resistance of the wire you are using. Scott Reed Owner 
  NewWays Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and 
  Administration www.nwwnet.net -- Original Message 
  --- From: "Mark Nash" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "WISPA 
  General List" wireless@wispa.org Sent: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 11:25:08 
  -0700 Subject: [WISPA] 450' PoE 48v  Hello...got a run of cat5 about 450' that is working but doesn't seem 
  to be sufficiently powering the amplifier built into the antenna. The 
  device is a TerabeamEtherAnt-Turbo/LR (same as Proxim's Terastar 
  EtherAnt/LR). It works but SNR should be better. If I power the 
  thing locally (25' of cat5) it works as it should, so I think it may be 
  insufficient power.It's got a 48v 0.4a power supply. I know that it's far over spec 
  for PoE...but specs were made up from engineers who have to play it safe for 
  what they recommend. So...any field answers to my dilemma? Is more 
  information needed?Perhaps a side question: What drops over distance...volts or 
  amps? Please consider the non-electrically-experienced crowd. 
 Thanks much.  
   Mark Nash  Network Engineer  UnwiredOnline.Net 
   350 Holly Street  Junction City, OR 97448  http://www.uwol.net  541-998- 
   541-998-5599 fax --- End of Original Message --- 
  
  
  

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

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

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


Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update

2006-04-24 Thread Peter R.

Marlon K. wrote:

It's funny.  I thought that getting the local businesses on broadband 
would help me sell more of it.  People would use it at work and want 
it at home too right?  Wrong.  They just do all of their stuff at work 
and sometimes cancel even the dialup!




This is because people don't find enough value in broadband.
If you can check all your mail at home and then on your cellphone, what 
do you need broadband for?


That's the story you have to tell... What great things they can do with 
BB... connect to the community, watch video, download music at 
iTunes/Y!... etc.


You might have to create a niche in order to sell more.

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

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

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


Re: [WISPA] 450' PoE 48v

2006-04-24 Thread Scott Reed




The wireless physics discussion in another thread here applies as well. After 100 meters propogation delays can be an issue.  If it works, no problem, but be aware, I have seen things work for years and then it quits.

If you need the power calculations for your run, feel free to hit me offlist.

Scott Reed 


Owner 


NewWays 


Wireless Networking 


Network Design, Installation and Administration 


www.nwwnet.net 




-- Original Message 
---

From: Mark Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] 


To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 


Sent: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 12:02:58 -0700 


Subject: Re: [WISPA] 450' PoE 48v 



 Thanks, Scott.  So, increased voltage is 

something to 
try.

  

 And your comment on the cat5 being too far...it 
was 

considered initially but the ethernet interface on these units is a 10mb/half 

duplex interface.  My experience tells me that I can reliably do 10mb/half 

duplex ethernet with 500 feet of cat5...going back to my old Novell CNE 

days when 10BaseT was the next greatest thing, replacing Token Ring  

Arcnet.

 
 Mark Nash
 Network Engineer
 
UnwiredOnline.Net
 350 

Holly Street
 Junction City, OR 97448
 http://www.uwol.net
 541-998-
 
541-998-5599 

fax
 


  
 - Original Message - 

  
 From: 

  Scott Reed 

  
 To: WISPA General List 

  
 Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 11:54 

  
AM
  
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 450' PoE 
48v
  
 
 First, 450' is way too far for really reliable 

  ethternet, if it is cat 5. 
 
 Voltage drops due to resistance 
in the 

  wire.  Voltage = Current * Resistance.  Longer wire has more 

  resistance.  You will need to increase the voltage of the power supply 

  based on the current rating of the device(s) at the other end of the wire and 

  the resistance of the wire you are using. 
 
 Scott Reed 

 Owner 

  
 NewWays 
 Wireless Networking 
 Network Design, 
Installation and 

  Administration 
 www.nwwnet.net 
 
 -- Original 
Message 

  --- 
 From: Mark Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 To: 
WISPA 

  General List wireless@wispa.org 
 Sent: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 
11:25:08 

  -0700 
 Subject: [WISPA] 450' PoE 48v 
 
  Hello...got a run of cat5 about 450' that is working but doesn't seem 

  to be sufficiently powering the amplifier built into the antenna.  The 

  device is a Terabeam EtherAnt-Turbo/LR (same as Proxim's Terastar 

  EtherAnt/LR).  It works but SNR should be better.  If I power the 

  thing locally (25' of cat5) it works as it should, so I think it may be 

  insufficient power.  
    
  It's got a 48v 0.4a power supply.  I know that it's far over spec 

  for PoE...but specs were made up from engineers who have to play it safe for 

  what they recommend.  So...any field answers to my dilemma?  Is more 

  information needed? 
    
  Perhaps a side question:  What drops over distance...volts or 

  amps?  Please consider the non-electrically-experienced crowd. 

  
    
  Thanks much. 

  

  
  Mark Nash 
  Network Engineer 
  
UnwiredOnline.Net 

  
  350 Holly Street 
  Junction City, OR 97448 
 
 http://www.uwol.net 
  541-998- 

  
  541-998-5599 fax 
 --- End of Original Message 
--- 

  
 

  
 

  



  
 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: 

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

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


--- End of Original Message 
---






-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update

2006-04-24 Thread Rich Comroe

Rich, with all due respect, your idea has a REALLY big flaw in it.


I love debate.  I'll take that as a challenge  :-)

Once government sets a standard, it's going to be a very long time before 
anything new comes along.
No Darwinism (government standards, really that's what the old Ma Bell 
system in essence was) is even worse.


I agree with you that this is the prevailing wisdom here (and said so).  A 
lot of people really believe this in the United States.  That's despite the 
significant wireless market evidence to the contrary.  The FCC set ONE 
standard for original analog cellular (later knows as AMPS) 30 years ago. 
Did it stiffle anything new coming along?  No.  AMPS became the world 
cellular standard, and companies who invested in it were rewarded with world 
market.  But when digital cellular came along this new thinking had set 
in.  A US Digital Cellular standard was written (USDC) and almost 
immediately companies began crying to do differently (notably Qualcom and 
Motorola).  There was double-talk that if one standard is good, two 
standards must be better (nonsense ... if there is more than one standard 
there is in fact no standard).  The FCC went along with the US wireless 
industry's request for Darwinism (IMO because there was a new sense that 
technical flexibility in granting licenses would make them more valuable and 
Washington was getting an inkling of how much companies might be willing to 
pay for licenses in a bidding auction system).  Essentially we have pure 
Darwinism in US digital cellular today.  Does it serve the public best? 
Does it serve the carriers best?  No to both ... all it did was give-away 
the entire world digital cellular market to Europe's GSM which had no 
problem being judged a better choice compared to America's free-for-all. 
Oh, and your cellphone can't get coverage from 4 out of 5 towers that you 
pass by (because they're different technologies).



They are now building to catch up


No way.  Non-US manufacturers own the digital cellular market, and 
significant portions of the US infastructure is being replaced with European 
designed GSM  GPRS.  The US lost leadership in 2nd  3rd generation 
cellular.  A little test:  What brand cellphones are the market leaders in 
America, and where country are they from?


What about boadband wireless internet:

Once government sets a standard, it's going to be a very long time before 
anything new comes along.


There is a middle ground.  When Europe set aside the RLAN band (for 
hyperlan) they didn't mandate that systems had to be hyperlan to get the 
European equivalent of FCC type acceptance.  They picked 2 technical 
elements of playing nice and made them mandatory requirements for type 
acceptance (TPC  DFS).  Systems had to support Transmit Power Control and 
Dynamic Frequency Selection to be considered for compliance.  Europe set 
this up in the late 90's I think.  Oh how I wish US license exempt bands 
required part-15, *and* TPC  DFS.  How would it have impacted wisps that 
employ 802.11 technologies?  Well, 802.11h (I believe it's the h suffix) 
has both these attributes (I presume the h suffix version was designed to 
make 802.11 saleable into European RLAN markets ... can anyone comment on 
this?).  So if this had been a US requirement, equipment for the WISP market 
would today all support the .h version and it wouldn't have impacted your 
system ... BUT it would have prevented destructive interference between your 
system and some other manufacturer choosing to market equipment that didn't 
play nice.  I think it would have been better for all wisps.  No?



Market forces are best left alone.


Standards are a fascinating field into themselves.  It's a little politics, 
public relations, technology, business, and government all rolled up 
together.  Laisse-fare turned out NOT to be in the best interests of the 
United States manufacturers, carriers, or citizens.  It's a world market and 
citizens expect their government to do what's best for their citizens, their 
providers, and their manufacturers.  History showed us that let the market 
work itself out was not the best answer.  A good case study is VHS vs BETA. 
What did VHS lead in the US market for 20 years even though BETA was better? 
Better standards strategy!  Sony learned their lessons well and did a 
complete 180 on the standards strategy for 8mm.  A well thought out standard 
helps everyone.


Rich

- Original Message - 
From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update



Rich, with all due respect, your idea has a REALLY big flaw in it.

Once government sets a standard, it's going to be a very long time before 
anything new comes along.


Pure Darwinism is bad in that it requires too much capital investment.

No Darwinism (government standards, really that's what the old Ma Bell 
system in essence 

Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Dawn DiPietro

Jack,

Not a problem. This discussion needed the information and no one else 
posted it. I have been reading up on this network since
Ken went to the MuniWireless Show in Atlanta. Unfortunately some of the 
articles I read are no longer available.


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro

Jack Unger wrote:


Dawn,

Thanks for posting the St. Cloud PepLink and HP info.



---
---

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Matt Liotta
Similar is not the same. I couldn't find detailed specifications online. 
However, I do see that the unit has lower transmit power, it doesn't 
seem to be capable of being powered by AC, it doesn't seem capable of 
powering other devices such as a Canopy or Trango SM, and while there is 
a picture of some separate photo-cell power there is no specifications 
for that either. For example, many photo-cell taps are limited to 240v, 
but many street lights are 277v/480v.


-Matt

Jeffrey Thomas wrote:


Airmatrix offers very similar features for less than 1/3 the cost of tropos.

They also ofer Pole mounted power, and actually have a much lower power
consumption, in addition to having multiple configurations including dual
Radio diversity 2.4, dual radio diversity 2.4/5.8, etc.

-

Jeff



On 4/24/06 10:27 AM, Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 


A Tropos unit has a 1W transmitter, is capable of being powered via PoE
or via AC delivered through standard outlets as well as a variety of
photo-cell taps including high-voltage ones. When powered with AC, it is
capable of providing PoE power out of its Ethernet ports supporting
equipment from Motorola and Trango even though neither using standard
PoE. It mounts like a dream, includes level bubbles for perfect
orientation, and units can be slid into and out of place with only a
single screw enabling nodes to be changed in less than 5 minutes. Quite
simply, a Tropos unit is beautifully engineered.

Where can I find the parts to make the same thing in a single package?

-Matt

chris cooper wrote:

   


Why not just buy the cards, boards, antennas and make a few yourself?

c

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:46 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

Then there are companies like airmatrix that charge less than 1k per
node.
The key with mesh is density, and many mesh startup's fail because they
Underbuild their networks.

-

Jeff



On 4/24/06 7:53 AM, John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



 


I don't know what equipment they are using, but Cisco AP1500's (mesh)
  

   


are


 


abnout $3700 each and Cisco recommends 18-20 per square mile. Thats
  

   


$74,000


 


for the boxes plus antennas, mounts, POE and install.

John


  

   


-Original Message-
From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:26 AM
To: ''WISPA General List''
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

$173K per mile build out cost?  Somebody just bought a new boat..

c

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


 


On


 


Behalf Of George
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:08 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

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

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

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



--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date:


 


4/14/2006


 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

   




 




 



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Jeffrey Thomas
Matt, hit me offlist and I will be glad to send you all that. We have used
AM for deployments on lightpoles and I know there are configurations
available to power more than a single unit.

-

Jeff



On 4/24/06 1:42 PM, Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Similar is not the same. I couldn't find detailed specifications online.
 However, I do see that the unit has lower transmit power, it doesn't
 seem to be capable of being powered by AC, it doesn't seem capable of
 powering other devices such as a Canopy or Trango SM, and while there is
 a picture of some separate photo-cell power there is no specifications
 for that either. For example, many photo-cell taps are limited to 240v,
 but many street lights are 277v/480v.
 
 -Matt
 
 Jeffrey Thomas wrote:
 
 Airmatrix offers very similar features for less than 1/3 the cost of tropos.
 
 They also ofer Pole mounted power, and actually have a much lower power
 consumption, in addition to having multiple configurations including dual
 Radio diversity 2.4, dual radio diversity 2.4/5.8, etc.
 
 -
 
 Jeff
 
 
 
 On 4/24/06 10:27 AM, Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  
 
 A Tropos unit has a 1W transmitter, is capable of being powered via PoE
 or via AC delivered through standard outlets as well as a variety of
 photo-cell taps including high-voltage ones. When powered with AC, it is
 capable of providing PoE power out of its Ethernet ports supporting
 equipment from Motorola and Trango even though neither using standard
 PoE. It mounts like a dream, includes level bubbles for perfect
 orientation, and units can be slid into and out of place with only a
 single screw enabling nodes to be changed in less than 5 minutes. Quite
 simply, a Tropos unit is beautifully engineered.
 
 Where can I find the parts to make the same thing in a single package?
 
 -Matt
 
 chris cooper wrote:
 

 
 Why not just buy the cards, boards, antennas and make a few yourself?
 
 c
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas
 Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:46 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
 
 Then there are companies like airmatrix that charge less than 1k per
 node.
 The key with mesh is density, and many mesh startup's fail because they
 Underbuild their networks.
 
 -
 
 Jeff
 
 
 
 On 4/24/06 7:53 AM, John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 
 
  
 
 I don't know what equipment they are using, but Cisco AP1500's (mesh)
   
 

 
 are
 
 
  
 
 abnout $3700 each and Cisco recommends 18-20 per square mile. Thats
   
 

 
 $74,000
 
 
  
 
 for the boxes plus antennas, mounts, POE and install.
 
 John
 
 
   
 

 
 -Original Message-
 From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:26 AM
 To: ''WISPA General List''
 Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
 
 $173K per mile build out cost?  Somebody just bought a new boat..
 
 c
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 
  
 
 On
 
 
  
 
 Behalf Of George
 Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:08 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
 
 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups
 
 I am not a fan of muni wireless.
 
 George
 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 
 
 --
 Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
 Checked by AVG Free Edition.
 Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date:
 
 
  
 
 4/14/2006
 
 
  
 
 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 
 
  
 
 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
   
 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Jack Unger

Matt Liotta wrote:


Jack Unger wrote:

1. The attenuation between 2.4 GHz nodes is not enough to prevent each 
node from hearing multiple other nodes as noise (thus more packet 
retransmissions and more reduced throughtput). This requires 
understanding link budgets, signal-to-noise ratios, and receiver 
threshold specifications.


Luckily for us we happen to be a WISP that understands these issues. We 
have deployed several Tropos-based networks with sufficient attenuation 
between nodes.


I'm glad you understand RF and that you have deployed several Tropos 
networks. I'm VERY interested in hearing about any big-city, 
wireless-for-all (shared residential-business-muni-public safety) 
voice-video-date deployments that do now (or that do in the future) 
successfully meet the original city-government and city-residents 
expectations.


Please share with us the following information about your most 
successful Tropos deployment:


1. The end-user throughput expectations
2. The end-user application expectations
3. The number of nodes
4. The backhaul architecture (point-to-multipoint or meshed)
5. The number of end-users
6. The geographical coverage
7. The obstructions in the environment
8. The interference environment
9. The design and installation costs for hardware and labor
10. The throughput-delivery performance over time
11. The support costs
12. Tips and suggestions for others who would like to deploy mesh networks.

Sharing your real-world data here will be of immense value to all WISPs.




2. Metricom is not a good comparison because:
a. They were frequency hoppers on 900 MHz.



Physics applies on all spectrum.


This statement glosses over the issue of different propagation 
characteristics at different frequencies and the issue of different 
modulation robustnesses. The same propagation characteristics don't 
apply to all spectrum nor does interference immunity apply the same to 
frequency hopping vs. direct-sequence spread spectrum. The narrower the 
channel (and FHSS uses narrow channels) the easier it is for a receiver 
to recover a signal in the face of interference. Comparing the narrow 
Metricom FHSS channels robustness to the current-day wideband DSSS 
channels is comparing apples to oranges even if both systems were 
operating in the same frequency band. Further, comparing the propagation 
characteristics of 900 MHz to 2.4 GHz is (again) like comparing apples 
to oranges. The longer wavelength of the 900 MHz signal undergoes less 
attenuation from obstructions when compared to the attenuation that a 
2.4 GHz signal experiences from those same obstructions.


b. They promised low (128kbps and then 256kbps, if memory serves) 
throughput. This doesn't compare to today's expected throughput levels.



It was stated that the problems occurred for hams at 1200 baud.


1200 baud, 128 kbps, or 11 Mbps - when same-frequency packet collisions 
occur, throughput is reduced however, the higher the data rate (speed), 
the more complex the modulation mode and the more easily the packet 
payload can be mangled by interference.



c. They eventually went to a two-band node that backhauled on 2.4 GHz. 
so they could increase throughput.



Only in select areas; the vast majority of the network was single band.


Right, and therefore their network was severely throughput limited over 
the vast majority of the network.





d. Metricom then went out of business.



The network did work and it was profitable in a number of cities. The 
fact that there was a market bust or that company built more cities than 
they had cash flow to support isn't a technical concern.


Their network was always slow, perhaps 128 kbps tops when only a single 
user was active. The network never served many customers and was 
therefore never heavily loaded. Metricom never had enough customers to 
become profitable. Being ahead of their time and building out in too 
many unprofitable cities were the non-technical reasons that they 
failed. Combining these reasons with the technical fact of the low 
network throughput capabilitiy limited the number of end users that they 
could serve thereby denying them the chance to be profitable. Their 
investors finally stopped giving them money and they had to close their 
doors.



Physics is still physics and companies need to but don't yet 
understand wireless physics. They need this understanding before 
bidding on muni projects and before they make these high-expectation, 
wireless-for-all, triple-play (voice, video, data) promises to public 
officials. Once a muni network is engineered incorrectly and deployed 
incorrectly, it may well take as much additional money to fix it (if 
it even can be fixed) as it took to deploy it in the first place.



Math is still math and companies need to but don't yet understand 
advanced mathematics. This generalization is just as accurate as your 
statement, but hopefully seems more absurd. Some companies understand 
wireless physics. Some of these 

Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update

2006-04-24 Thread Rich Comroe
Marlon, I think I can appreciate most everything you've said.  I can only 
add to each of your points, while accepting your input, why I think that 
your (and my) life would be better if we had some more constructive 
requirements in the wisp market than anything that fits the transmit mask.


It's interesting that you should bring up a 30 YEAR old technology as a 
good example for an equipment life standards discussion.  hehehehehe


It was just an example of how FATALLY flawed the change to let the market 
decide between generation I cellular (analog) and generation II cellular 
(first generation digital cellular) was, and we've all paid dearly for it 
(whether most people know it or not).  It was the blanket assertion that 
No-Darwinism is necessarily worse than Darwinism and to be rejected 
out-of-hand.


US manufacturers are free to choose who and what they want!  It's working 
perfectly.


I think you meant carriers or providers in the above.  Where GSM rules 
apply (that's most of the world) service is seamless ... it's the best world 
for the customers.  Since wisps business as service providing is mostly 
fixed, I'll grant you that seamless is not a meaningful advantage.  But 
consider this.  As a service provider in the GSM world all brands of GSM 
equipment are interchangable.  From a service provider perspective you can 
get the best equipment prices (because there's more choices of suppiers). 
From the manufacturer, they can sell the same equipment world-wide, so they 
build in higher volume.  From a manufacturer perspective I know this 
inherently, but service providers should all know that the volume a 
manufacturer produces has a higher impact than anything else on 
manufacturing cost (and thus selling price).  Equipment manufacturers  
providers who build  deploy GSM enjoy significantly lower equipment cost. 
So let's try this again:


US manufacturers are free to choose who and what they want!  It's working 
perfectly.


If working perfectly means you don't care that the equipment costs more 
because of the free-for-all and you've no protection from destructive 
interworking, then I accept it's working perfectly!



We'll see.  That's what the FCC just did with 3650.


Agreed.  I'm hopeful that this was a good move.

And lets be real here eh?  No matter how good something we do is, much of 
Europe will do it differently just because we did it first.


Not quite the point.  I don't care what Europe does either.  More countries 
on this planet now choose to establish rules compatible with ETSI than with 
the US FCC (that's another big part of what the cellular free-for-all here 
cost us).  THAT was my point.  Look at the manufacturers that you buy your 
wisp equipment from.  They are charging you for equipment that they can only 
build for US markets and the few countries left on the planet that accept US 
FCC wireless rules (not too many).  Imagine how much less it might cost you 
if they could manufacturer in the greater volume to sell to all markets.


As for having ALL devices be wifi?  No thanks!  There are good things 
coming out of the proprietary market.


I agree, wasn't implying all devices have to be wifi.  Consider this 
example:  One of the middle bands at 5GHz is being opened for ANY 
technology, as long as they have a US DOT approved DFS (as I understand it). 
Could be 802.11, could be Canopy, could be anything ... as long as they all 
support the DFS so that they don't talk on the US military radar.  This is 
what I understood ETSI to have set for the 5GHz RLAN bands (in most 
countries on the planet) ... doesn't have to be hyperlan2, as long as they 
all support TPC  DFS.  Where do you think 5.4 Canopy has been shipping for 
some time already?  A couple organizing standard requirements doesn't mean 
everybody has to deploy the exact same technology, but it could make 
everybody's life a whole lot better.  This is what I suggested under the 
term middle ground ... in your terms somewhere costructively between 
Pure-Darwinism and No-Darwinism as you put it.


What made beta better than VHS? Certainly part of what made VHS better was 
the availability.


Sony designed Beta, but intended to be the only supplier (Proprietary).  VHS 
was successful because of the availability, because of the consortium of 
companies who all agreed to support a common design.  VHS won precisely 
because of the standard (the availability as you put it).  When Sony came 
out with their next format (8mm) they made sure they offered the design to 
a consortium of companies who would agree to support a compatible design, 
which is why 8mm was succesful ... a 180 from their previous (Beta) 
position.  Japanese learned fast.  World 3rd generation cellular standards 
are a battleground between Japan and Europe (US design is not even a 
contender, but US manufacturers try to feed their inputs to both Japan and 
Europe standards bodies ... but we're the outsiders in both venues).


Technically?  Maybe Beta 

Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Tom DeReggi
Its amazing how many integrators forget the basic principle, that the RF 
reflection off the outside of a concrete or brick wall is at a higher signal 
strength than the signal that penetrates the wall and enters the home.  What 
good is signal into the home if you wipe out the transport down the street?


I thing the Muni Mesh needs a few real world failures fast to give everyone 
a reality check.  Its not that I'm wishing harm to others, its just that I 
do not see any way Muni Mesh its going to work out well technically for most 
big city Muni Mesh WiFi networks as designed.  By allowing the flaws to 
surface early will possibly save a lot of money for Munis and a lot of 
damage to reputation of the capabilty of the technology.  Right now there is 
a rat race to see who can do the successful case study first, copying off 
other Muni's plans that have not been proven successful yet. I look at it as 
the race to self destruction.


The muni nets that survive I believe are going to be the ones that are smart 
enough to diversify on their spectrum choice.  Robert Frost- I took the 
path less travelled and it made all the difference.. The biggest probelm is 
to may are going to try and jump on 5.8Ghz, the high power band. 
Unfortuneately both on t he front mile to attempt penetrate walls, and on 
the backend for backhaul. But what they are going to do instead is interfere 
and saturate/waste the most valuable band unecessarilly.  The secret to Muni 
Mesh Wifi success is going to be their abilty to acknowledge the new 
spectrum available to them such as the vast 255 Mhz of 5.4Ghz.  There is 
enough there for Last mile, transport, and backhaul, and likely not going to 
interfere with much of any one as it is fresh under used spectrum.  High 
Power is not needed for the small coverage areas typical of a city.


As Matt Liotta once pointed out in previous debates, the problem is not the 
principle MESH.  MESH is a valid technique to increase capacity and 
redundancy, if used properly for the right applications.  I believe the 
problem is the ignoring of the physics of RF propogation.  The other flaw 
that cities forget is that there are advantages of using multiple levels of 
height as well as density. Although Munis own the ride of ways, they rarely 
own the height of the city or preferred broadcast sites, and taht puts them 
at a disadvantage.


I believe that many small town muni networks will do well. But they often 
have different characteristics than the big city.  Buildings often have 
different arhetecture for one.  Fewers projects and interests to interfere, 
as another reason.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 11:10 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes



Jack,
I hate to say it but didn't we say I told you so There is just not
enough spectrum to design networks like this to work with anything but
dedicated CPE devices with outdoor antennas. Simply flooding an area with
more signal to let laptops inside a house work will not solve the problem.
It just creates more noise on already maxed out spectrum. I really wish 
the

vendors and project stalwarts would admit this is a problem with these
networks and not gloss it over. Self interference and outside interference
are always going to be huge problems in these muni-networks. Everyone 
trying

to build on the fact that off the shelf consumer devices can access this
network will be the downfall. Wi-fi was never designed for a massive 
outdoor
deployment such as this and when you try to make up for the fact that you 
do

not have control over the CPE when it comes to proper RF planning you are
doomed to failure. Just my 2 cents.



Thank You,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com http://www.wirelessmapping.com


-Original Message-
From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:29 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes


Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni problems
that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be done correctly
and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to play a positive
role in proper network design and operation however most muni networks
are incorrectly designed by people with limited wireless experience
(yes, that even includes some mesh network vendors) which will lead to
network failure, waste of taxpayer money, and possible loss of jobs on
the part of the city IT folks (not to mention the elected officials) who
backed the networks without first learning about how wireless technology
really works.
  jack

George wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

George


--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com