[WISPA] Wimax Hardware for sale?

2006-05-05 Thread Robert Kim Wireless Internet Advisor

anybody know of a manufacturer currently SELLING WORKING wimax hardware?

--
Robert Q Kim, Wireless Internet Advisor
http://wireless-internet-coverage.blogspot.com
http://evdo-coverage.com
http://wimax-access.blogspot.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] Wimax Hardware for sale?

2006-05-05 Thread Patrick Leary
Lots of people. Some where's the WiMAX certified logo, some does not yet,
though it is a formality. Our BreezeMAX has been working in commercial
environments for two years.

But which WiMAX are you talking about? There are lots of versions and the
one version that no one has...and no one should be clamoring for just
yet...is unlicensed WiMAX.

- Patrick, Alvarion

-Original Message-
From: Robert Kim Wireless Internet Advisor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 7:31 AM
To: wispa
Subject: [WISPA] Wimax Hardware for sale?

anybody know of a manufacturer currently SELLING WORKING wimax hardware?

--
Robert Q Kim, Wireless Internet Advisor
http://wireless-internet-coverage.blogspot.com
http://evdo-coverage.com
http://wimax-access.blogspot.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/



 
 


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




 
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Wimax Hardware for sale?

2006-05-05 Thread Matt Liotta

Patrick Leary wrote:


But which WiMAX are you talking about? There are lots of versions and the
one version that no one has...and no one should be clamoring for just
yet...is unlicensed WiMAX.

 

I am certainly looking for WiMAX features such as spectral efficiency in 
5 Ghz unlicensed gear right now. I don't really care about the standard.


-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] Wimax Hardware for sale?

2006-05-05 Thread Robert Kim Wireless Internet Advisor

Patrick, You're in the family... so where can i find a product / pricelist,
2. is it simple enough for the end user to install?
3. range and fall-off curve?
4. legal to use in
a usa
b england
c canada?


On 5/5/06, Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Patrick Leary wrote:

But which WiMAX are you talking about? There are lots of versions and the
one version that no one has...and no one should be clamoring for just
yet...is unlicensed WiMAX.



I am certainly looking for WiMAX features such as spectral efficiency in
5 Ghz unlicensed gear right now. I don't really care about the standard.

-Matt




--
Robert Q Kim, Wireless Internet Advisor
http://wireless-internet-coverage.blogspot.com
http://evdo-coverage.com
http://wimax-access.blogspot.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] Wimax Hardware for sale?

2006-05-05 Thread Patrick Leary
Fair enough, and that's a different matter. I cannot speak for other brands,
but BreezeACCESS VL is about to get even more efficient, and dramatically so
in terms of packets per second and that is really where the rubber hits the
road. It looks like it may achieve as much as 50k pps. On top of that are a
few new major features for VoIP and other real time apps like video. More
details will be forthcoming.

- Patrick, Alvarion

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 8:11 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wimax Hardware for sale?

Patrick Leary wrote:

But which WiMAX are you talking about? There are lots of versions and the
one version that no one has...and no one should be clamoring for just
yet...is unlicensed WiMAX.

  

I am certainly looking for WiMAX features such as spectral efficiency in 
5 Ghz unlicensed gear right now. I don't really care about the standard.

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

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

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



 
 


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




 
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Wimax Hardware for sale?

2006-05-05 Thread Matt Liotta
I am sure a number of vendors have exciting things coming at some point 
in the future. In the meantime, I am buying product now. So, from a 
practical standpoint, does your future product have any impact on 
current deployment decisions? For example, if we bought product today 
that was software upgradeable later then it is worth considering.


What I am looking for is higher throughput per sector and/or denser 
radio colocation. I have sites today with 15 5.7Ghz radios and I still 
don't have enough room (spectrum or bandwidth). Canopy's syncing is 
saving my butt today by allowing us to colocate radios on the same 
channel, but once we need more than 14Mbps aggregate we lose the syncing 
as we deploy Orthogon's product.


-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:


Fair enough, and that's a different matter. I cannot speak for other brands,
but BreezeACCESS VL is about to get even more efficient, and dramatically so
in terms of packets per second and that is really where the rubber hits the
road. It looks like it may achieve as much as 50k pps. On top of that are a
few new major features for VoIP and other real time apps like video. More
details will be forthcoming.

- Patrick, Alvarion

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 8:11 AM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wimax Hardware for sale?

Patrick Leary wrote:

 


But which WiMAX are you talking about? There are lots of versions and the
one version that no one has...and no one should be clamoring for just
yet...is unlicensed WiMAX.



   

I am certainly looking for WiMAX features such as spectral efficiency in 
5 Ghz unlicensed gear right now. I don't really care about the standard.


-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] Wimax Hardware for sale?

2006-05-05 Thread Patrick Leary
It is firmware Matt, so it is being applied to current hardware. Current
multipoint hardware with current firmware is already doing over 30Mbps NET
per sector or 15Mbps in the 10MHz channel version. So the data already rocks
and the voice is pretty good. When 4.0 is applied, data will still rock and
so will voice (maybe as much as 400% improvement in concurrent calls per
sector).

- Patrick

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 8:41 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wimax Hardware for sale?

I am sure a number of vendors have exciting things coming at some point 
in the future. In the meantime, I am buying product now. So, from a 
practical standpoint, does your future product have any impact on 
current deployment decisions? For example, if we bought product today 
that was software upgradeable later then it is worth considering.

What I am looking for is higher throughput per sector and/or denser 
radio colocation. I have sites today with 15 5.7Ghz radios and I still 
don't have enough room (spectrum or bandwidth). Canopy's syncing is 
saving my butt today by allowing us to colocate radios on the same 
channel, but once we need more than 14Mbps aggregate we lose the syncing 
as we deploy Orthogon's product.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:

Fair enough, and that's a different matter. I cannot speak for other
brands,
but BreezeACCESS VL is about to get even more efficient, and dramatically
so
in terms of packets per second and that is really where the rubber hits the
road. It looks like it may achieve as much as 50k pps. On top of that are a
few new major features for VoIP and other real time apps like video. More
details will be forthcoming.

- Patrick, Alvarion

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 8:11 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wimax Hardware for sale?

Patrick Leary wrote:

  

But which WiMAX are you talking about? There are lots of versions and the
one version that no one has...and no one should be clamoring for just
yet...is unlicensed WiMAX.

 



I am certainly looking for WiMAX features such as spectral efficiency in 
5 Ghz unlicensed gear right now. I don't really care about the standard.

-Matt
  


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



 
 


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




 
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Wimax Hardware for sale?

2006-05-05 Thread Jeffrey Thomas
Aperto packetwave is your best bet then, contact me off list for details.

-

Jeff



On 5/5/06 8:10 AM, Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Patrick Leary wrote:
 
 But which WiMAX are you talking about? There are lots of versions and the
 one version that no one has...and no one should be clamoring for just
 yet...is unlicensed WiMAX.
 
  
 
 I am certainly looking for WiMAX features such as spectral efficiency in
 5 Ghz unlicensed gear right now. I don't really care about the standard.
 
 -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] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)

2006-05-05 Thread Matt Liotta

It is? IIRC, the tariff price of 1.5 meg DSL from BellSouth is $23.95.

-Matt

Charles Wu wrote:


But what about oversubscription?
Transit costs aside, the cost of last-mile transport of even 1 Mbps of data
pipe is still far more than $20-30 / month
What happens when users actually start *using* the bandwidth they are
*promised*...

-Charles

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




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 8:46 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)


Content is supposed to get a free ride since we all sell data pipes. If 
a customer buys 1 meg of data service from me then they are free to use 
that 1 meg for whatever they want. If that isn't enough bandwidth for 
what they want then they better buy more. Over time will the customer be 
able to buy more bandwidth for less money? Sure, that trend has been 
going on for a long time now. Does that mean content providers are 
getting a free ride? No, they still have to pay transit costs on their 
side. Although, we are certainly peering with as many content providers 
as we can to reduce our transit costs and increase our customers' 
quality. Its pretty hot shit when you are 4ms away from Google and you 
don't have to pay for it.


-Matt

George Rogato wrote:

 


It is a stretch peter.

But you have to look at both ends of the argument, if you agree
content providers will prevail in the future and you accept that the 
pipe has to get bigger, you can only come to the conclusion that the 
provider will have increased costs.


Can the wisp actually raise thier prices while the telco and cable ops
lower theirs? Not likely.

The burden has to be shared by the content providers. I'm not saying
make google pay per click, but movies and heavy consumption content 
can't get a free ride.


So what should we do?

George




Peter R. wrote:

   


That is one huge IF! Cuz how would they make money?

If it did happen, you could always change your pricing model. Isn't 
there a clause in your AUP about total usage in a month? How about 30 
days notice to affect a price change?


- Peter
RAD-INFO, Inc.


George Rogato wrote:

 


I don't know , Travis, web pages voip ftp streaming music occasional
movies low bandwidth streaming video, no problem.

But what if, what if tomorrow Travis wakes up and reads in his
newspaper that the local cable company or satellite co is going to 
offer a substantial discount if the just unplug the cable wire and 
plug in that new set top box into their isp's little router and get 
ALL their tv that way.


Wouldn't you ask, why can you guys use my network to feed your
customers.

Wouldn't you start wondering if those p4 routers and DS3's you got
there be enough to handle that type of traffic?
Would you have to upgrade your infrastructure to accomadate this?

What if it was google, yahoo, msn, att or even verizon that was
offering this as a way to reach customers without trying to build 
local infrastructure?


I'm realizing I'm exaggerating this some, at least for the near
future, but if this scenario was to take place, what would you be 
saying then?


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] Wimax Hardware for sale?

2006-05-05 Thread Charles Wu
You can do a 5 MHz channel size on an Atheros chip (Off the top of my head,
Alvarion  Airaya have implemented it so far)

-Charles

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



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 10:11 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wimax Hardware for sale?


Patrick Leary wrote:

But which WiMAX are you talking about? There are lots of versions and 
the one version that no one has...and no one should be clamoring for 
just yet...is unlicensed WiMAX.

  

I am certainly looking for WiMAX features such as spectral efficiency in 
5 Ghz unlicensed gear right now. I don't really care about the standard.

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

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)

2006-05-05 Thread Charles Wu
But that's just the last mile local loop -- what about the ATM DS-3 circuit
coming back (and so forth)
Then there's servicing costs / etc

Keep in mind -- Bell copper has been amortized for quite a long time now --
and has been installed at almost a 100% penetration rate -- if you're
building your own infrastructure (wireless per say) -- do you realistically
believe that you're monthly costs for transport (inclusive from your NOC to
the customer's house) is less?

-Charles

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



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 12:28 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)


It is? IIRC, the tariff price of 1.5 meg DSL from BellSouth is $23.95.

-Matt

Charles Wu wrote:

But what about oversubscription?
Transit costs aside, the cost of last-mile transport of even 1 Mbps of 
data pipe is still far more than $20-30 / month What happens when 
users actually start *using* the bandwidth they are *promised*...

-Charles

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



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 8:46 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)


Content is supposed to get a free ride since we all sell data pipes. If
a customer buys 1 meg of data service from me then they are free to use 
that 1 meg for whatever they want. If that isn't enough bandwidth for 
what they want then they better buy more. Over time will the customer be 
able to buy more bandwidth for less money? Sure, that trend has been 
going on for a long time now. Does that mean content providers are 
getting a free ride? No, they still have to pay transit costs on their 
side. Although, we are certainly peering with as many content providers 
as we can to reduce our transit costs and increase our customers' 
quality. Its pretty hot shit when you are 4ms away from Google and you 
don't have to pay for it.

-Matt

George Rogato wrote:

  

It is a stretch peter.

But you have to look at both ends of the argument, if you agree 
content providers will prevail in the future and you accept that the 
pipe has to get bigger, you can only come to the conclusion that the 
provider will have increased costs.

Can the wisp actually raise thier prices while the telco and cable ops 
lower theirs? Not likely.

The burden has to be shared by the content providers. I'm not saying 
make google pay per click, but movies and heavy consumption content 
can't get a free ride.

So what should we do?

George




Peter R. wrote:



That is one huge IF! Cuz how would they make money?

If it did happen, you could always change your pricing model. Isn't
there a clause in your AUP about total usage in a month? How about 30 
days notice to affect a price change?

- Peter
RAD-INFO, Inc.


George Rogato wrote:

  

I don't know , Travis, web pages voip ftp streaming music occasional 
movies low bandwidth streaming video, no problem.

But what if, what if tomorrow Travis wakes up and reads in his 
newspaper that the local cable company or satellite co is going to 
offer a substantial discount if the just unplug the cable wire and 
plug in that new set top box into their isp's little router and get 
ALL their tv that way.

Wouldn't you ask, why can you guys use my network to feed your 
customers.

Wouldn't you start wondering if those p4 routers and DS3's you got 
there be enough to handle that type of traffic? Would you have to 
upgrade your infrastructure to accomadate this?

What if it was google, yahoo, msn, att or even verizon that was 
offering this as a way to reach customers without trying to build 
local infrastructure?

I'm realizing I'm exaggerating this some, at least for the near 
future, but if this scenario was to take place, what would you be 
saying then?

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] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)

2006-05-05 Thread Tom DeReggi

Matt,

Sounds like legislators or reading maketing advertisements instead of 
acceptable use policies and fine print of broadband contracts.



What makes you come to that conclusion?


Well... you can't make Net Neutrality Laws without considering how ISPs 
would be capable of technically delivering on those laws, without self harm.
I have not read anything from legislators that includes data on technical 
aspects of delivery. The problems is that Fiber has different capabilties 
than Wireless, and I jsut don;t see how someone can make a law that deal 
with delviery of data, when technologies used for delivery are so widely 
different in capacity. Ex. One fiber loop, can deliver 80GB. Jsut needs a 
hardware change, which price may drop in cost with market forces and 
legislation encouraging higher speeds and volume of deployment.  Wireless on 
the other hand has a fixed capacity, in practicality today. In many cases 
peaked at 30mbps, and often peaked at as low a 4 mbps.  How can legislation 
address both technologies with out special provisions injected to cater to 
each? The absense of adresssing dissimilar technology in Legislation infers 
that those writing legislation do not undrstand the issues at hand 
jsutifying it to be addressed.  In truth, I have no prove that draws me to 
my conclusion. It just sounds likely to me.  This industry takes a lot of 
predicting and forecasting, its not all black and white for us to know the 
truth.



So, where is your argument against

my earlier email?


Actualy my response really isn't a targeted arguement to your original post. 
Reading your post, however did spark thought from me on Net Neutrality, that 
I find a interesting complex issue. Consider my response, my daily rambling. 
:-)


I disagree it is a flawed model. We have customers that buy VoIP from us 
and others that buy VoIP from companies like Vonage. Our VoIP is much 
higher quality, but for customers that buy Vonage they accept the service 
for what it is. We don't lower the priority of Vonage traffic; we don't 
have to. Our VoIP service will always better if for no other reason than 
it doesn't rely on internet transit. Core internet routers are designed to 
move as much traffic as fast as possible. Sometimes this means queing of 
traffic to obtain maximum throughput, while at the same time raising 
latency. That is a good thing for core routers, but a bad thing for 
real-time traffic like VoIP.


The difference here is that you currently appear to offer adequate QOS on 
your network design to offer a better Quality service. Many WISPs do NOT. 
Because they went after a different market that did not require it.  And 
many of them will likely not beable to upgrade their networks adequately to 
cater to requirements to deliver Net Neutrality as some legislation suggests 
the problem get solved.  Which could result in large loss of clients and 
failure of businesses.  I'm not necessarilly against Net Neutrality.  I just 
need to know that certain special interests such as Wireless and small 
providers are looked out for and not just bundled in with the profiles of 
the large carriers, Ilecs, cable co, and National CLECS.


The other thing is that I believe it is foolish to think that you will 
always deliver better QOS. Maybe you do today, I don;t challenge that. But 
the jsut because the Vonages of the world are cheap, does not necessarilly 
make them a less reliable provider.  The Vonages of the world are the 
largest threats to third party VOIP providers, jsut lije giant Cable 
companies are threats to Independant ISPs, and Microsoft is to Operating 
system developers.  Vonage has scaled huge, and that gives them an economy 
of scale to be capable of delivering better value. They also have more money 
to hire better people to design better systems, etc.  It doesn't mean they 
have done it today, but the possibilty is there.


But I agree with your point, in most cases, there should be no reason to 
specifically lower the priority of Vonages traffic, ethically. But a network 
very well might need to limit all VOIP in general to maintain QOS for data. 
The difference is cherry picking out specific businesses to block or harm. 
That is what Net Neutrality must protect from. But a Network Provider must 
be able to deterine what type of traffic can travel accross its network, and 
at what speed and priority, its required for network management.


So let me go as far as saying, maybe it is wrong for a provider to 
prioritize delivery of its product over another providers, after further 
thought.  An ISP can jsutify the higher QOS of its self provided VOIP 
services, based on number of hops to VOIP gateway. If my VOIP gateway 
rtesides on my network, with a engineered path, I know its likely going to 
perform better than someone using a VOIP service that travels the INternet 
to the VOIP gateway without the abilty to deliver QOS.  MAybe this will turn 
into a situation like Google cache appliances, or 

Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)

2006-05-05 Thread Matt Liotta

Charles Wu wrote:


But that's just the last mile local loop -- what about the ATM DS-3 circuit
coming back (and so forth)
Then there's servicing costs / etc

 

I was simply responding to your statement regarding just the last mile 
transport. If you want to include other considerations in the discussion 
then I don't understand your earlier email.



Keep in mind -- Bell copper has been amortized for quite a long time now --
and has been installed at almost a 100% penetration rate -- if you're
building your own infrastructure (wireless per say) -- do you realistically
believe that you're monthly costs for transport (inclusive from your NOC to
the customer's house) is less?

 

I never stated that my transport costs are less. Then again, I don't 
provide transport to single family homes anyway, so it is kind of 
irrelevant. Do I sell non-oversubscribed bandwidth to our commercial 
customers today? Yes, so I really don't care how much bandwidth they 
use. Can I sell a similar service to dense residential developments? 
Sure, but we haven't figured out how to do more than 2 installs per day, 
so I would rather focus on high ARPU customers. BTW, our 1.5Mbps last 
mile transport costs are lower than what Bell offers CLECs.


-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] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)

2006-05-05 Thread Matt Liotta

Tom DeReggi wrote:

The difference here is that you currently appear to offer adequate QOS 
on your network design to offer a better Quality service. Many WISPs 
do NOT. Because they went after a different market that did not 
require it.  And many of them will likely not beable to upgrade their 
networks adequately to cater to requirements to deliver Net Neutrality 
as some legislation suggests the problem get solved.  Which could 
result in large loss of clients and failure of businesses.  I'm not 
necessarilly against Net Neutrality.  I just need to know that certain 
special interests such as Wireless and small providers are looked out 
for and not just bundled in with the profiles of the large carriers, 
Ilecs, cable co, and National CLECS.


Markets change and business that won't or can't adapt deserve to lose. 
We should not have regulation designed to protect business models that 
no longer make sense. For example, I don't think we should help the 
airlines out when they run out of money. If some airlines can operate 
profitably then there is no reason to help out ones that can't.


The other thing is that I believe it is foolish to think that you will 
always deliver better QOS. Maybe you do today, I don;t challenge that. 
But the jsut because the Vonages of the world are cheap, does not 
necessarilly make them a less reliable provider.  The Vonages of the 
world are the largest threats to third party VOIP providers, jsut lije 
giant Cable companies are threats to Independant ISPs, and Microsoft 
is to Operating system developers.  Vonage has scaled huge, and that 
gives them an economy of scale to be capable of delivering better 
value. They also have more money to hire better people to design 
better systems, etc.  It doesn't mean they have done it today, but the 
possibilty is there.


Vonage might be bigger, have better people, and more cash, but their 
service will never be higher quality that ours because we own the 
network. Vonage's service might be good enough (I don't think it is), 
but it will never be better until they have end-to-end control.


So let me go as far as saying, maybe it is wrong for a provider to 
prioritize delivery of its product over another providers, after 
further thought.  An ISP can jsutify the higher QOS of its self 
provided VOIP services, based on number of hops to VOIP gateway. If my 
VOIP gateway rtesides on my network, with a engineered path, I know 
its likely going to perform better than someone using a VOIP service 
that travels the INternet to the VOIP gateway without the abilty to 
deliver QOS.  MAybe this will turn into a situation like Google cache 
appliances, or edge Web caching appliances, where the VOIP providers 
pay you to host their VOIP gateways to get shortest path the 
Subscriber/VOIP Phone user?


VoIP gateways closer to the customer is certainly one way to address the 
problem. I would expect the Akamais of the world to be looking into this.


But what needs to be made inevidably clear in any Net Neutrality 
legislation, is that a Network Provider must never be prevented from 
taking actions that will allow them to fix or deliver the QOS or 
EXPERIENCE to its customers, that they are contractually obligated to 
deliver to its subscribers, not necessarilly speed, capacity or 
commited rates. Network providers can not fear LEGAL RECOURCE every 
time they go to manage their network.


Certainly the government can force you to modify the contracts you have 
with your customers. See the 911 problems all the VoIP providers are having.


-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] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)

2006-05-05 Thread Peter R.

Charles,

Many do indeed :)

- Peter

Charles Wu wrote:


But that's just the last mile local loop -- what about the ATM DS-3 circuit
coming back (and so forth)
Then there's servicing costs / etc

Keep in mind -- Bell copper has been amortized for quite a long time now --
and has been installed at almost a 100% penetration rate -- if you're
building your own infrastructure (wireless per say) -- do you realistically
believe that you're monthly costs for transport (inclusive from your NOC to
the customer's house) is less?

-Charles

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)

2006-05-05 Thread Peter R.

What tariff rate? DSL is unregulated and de-tariffed.
It is also subsidized by voice services, since it uses the same copper 
pair.

Billing is miniscule (less than $1) because you already get a bill.
Their IP and ATM combined cost is less than $2 per subscriber.
The real overhead is tech support and the DSG (DSL Support Group).

- Peter


Matt Liotta wrote:


It is? IIRC, the tariff price of 1.5 meg DSL from BellSouth is $23.95.

-Matt

Charles Wu wrote:


But what about oversubscription?
Transit costs aside, the cost of last-mile transport of even 1 Mbps 
of data

pipe is still far more than $20-30 / month
What happens when users actually start *using* the bandwidth they are
*promised*...

-Charles



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)

2006-05-05 Thread Charles Wu
I was simply responding to your statement regarding just the last mile 
transport. If you want to include other considerations in the discussion 
then I don't understand your earlier email.

When considering net neutrality and its implications (e.g., allowing the TV
company to stream video over your network) -- I'm am trying to point out
that it's not simply a matter of bandwidth from the tower to the customer,
but also the tower backbone all the way to your NOC

Now -- if you're selling dedicated commercial bandwidth, this isn't an
issue, but if you're following standard residential oversubscription rules /
ratio (e.g., 1000 acounts equates to about 10 Mb @ 95%) -- it's going to get
EXTREMELY PAINFUL if those customers actually try to use all the bandwidth
that's been marketed to them

Then there's the issue of all those nasty/filtered services and net
neutrality -- will filtering bittorrent (or whatever nasty new bandwidth
hogging file sharing or whatever new program out there) violate the terms of
network neutrality?

-Charles

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)

2006-05-05 Thread Peter R.
According to Eric Lee, most of the 500+ members of Congress don't 
understand any of this stuff, but have to write a bill that does. Hence, 
do you really think that Congress or the FCC takes in to account the 
difference between fiber and wireless? How about the cable system and 
the PSTN? How about wireless and cellular? Nope. All lumped under one 
big pile that is misunderstood, but is churning the American economic 
engine and keeping many lobbyists and Congressmen rich.


Peter


Tom DeReggi wrote:

Well... you can't make Net Neutrality Laws without considering how 
ISPs would be capable of technically delivering on those laws, without 
self harm.
I have not read anything from legislators that includes data on 
technical aspects of delivery. The problems is that Fiber has 
different capabilties than Wireless, and I jsut don;t see how someone 
can make a law that deal with delviery of data, when technologies used 
for delivery are so widely different in capacity. Ex. One fiber loop, 
can deliver 80GB. Jsut needs a hardware change, which price may drop 
in cost with market forces and legislation encouraging higher speeds 
and volume of deployment.  Wireless on the other hand has a fixed 
capacity, in practicality today. In many cases peaked at 30mbps, and 
often peaked at as low a 4 mbps.  How can legislation address both 
technologies with out special provisions injected to cater to each? 
The absense of adresssing dissimilar technology in Legislation infers 
that those writing legislation do not undrstand the issues at hand 
jsutifying it to be addressed.  In truth, I have no prove that draws 
me to my conclusion. It just sounds likely to me.  This industry takes 
a lot of predicting and forecasting, its not all black and white for 
us to know the truth.



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)

2006-05-05 Thread Matt Liotta

Charles Wu wrote:


When considering net neutrality and its implications (e.g., allowing the TV
company to stream video over your network) -- I'm am trying to point out
that it's not simply a matter of bandwidth from the tower to the customer,
but also the tower backbone all the way to your NOC

 

Fair enough, but your earlier email asked on about a single issue, last 
mile transport.



Now -- if you're selling dedicated commercial bandwidth, this isn't an
issue, but if you're following standard residential oversubscription rules /
ratio (e.g., 1000 acounts equates to about 10 Mb @ 95%) -- it's going to get
EXTREMELY PAINFUL if those customers actually try to use all the bandwidth
that's been marketed to them

 

Then maybe standard residential over subscription isn't going to work 
much longer. I don't see that as an issue worthy of government time 
though. If the market demands more bandwidth and your business can't 
deliver then I agree your business is going to be painful. On the other 
hand, if you can deliver exciting times are coming.



Then there's the issue of all those nasty/filtered services and net
neutrality -- will filtering bittorrent (or whatever nasty new bandwidth
hogging file sharing or whatever new program out there) violate the terms of
network neutrality?

 

Filtering services is the wrong way to go. Bandwidth management that 
encourages the right sort of subscriber behavior is a better way to go. 
Don't like people downloading DVDs over your network? Slow down 
downloads that are active for longer than a specified period of time. 
This enables the user to do what they want, but at the same time 
encourages the user to do what you want.


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

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

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


[WISPA] wiccp or frottle?

2006-05-05 Thread Michel Pelletier

Hi folks,

Does anyone have any eperience using token-access polling software with 
linux like wiccp or frottle?  I'm specifically interested in wiccp and 
how well it performs to solve the hidden node problem, and would like to 
chat with someone who has real world experience using either of these 
products.


Thanks!

-Michel

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Wimax Hardware for sale?

2006-05-05 Thread Stephen Patrick
Title: RE: [WISPA] Wimax Hardware for sale?





Absolutely right regarding non-WiMax solution -
Well worth a look at systems built using Mikrotik O/S, which supports 5, 10, 20 and 40MHz channels, and the latest atheros cards.

Very feature-rich and good hardware support from various vendors (including us!).
If you want interoperability and roadmap, WiMax is a great (and we think so too) -
But otherwise, there are plenty of other options



Regards


Stephen


==
Cablefree Solutions Ltd
www.cablefreesolutions.com 



-Original Message-
From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 05 May 2006 18:39
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Wimax Hardware for sale?



You can do a 5 MHz channel size on an Atheros chip (Off the top of my head,
Alvarion  Airaya have implemented it so far)


-Charles


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




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 10:11 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wimax Hardware for sale?



Patrick Leary wrote:


But which WiMAX are you talking about? There are lots of versions and 
the one version that no one has...and no one should be clamoring for 
just yet...is unlicensed WiMAX.

 

I am certainly looking for WiMAX features such as spectral efficiency in 
5 Ghz unlicensed gear right now. I don't really care about the standard.


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


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


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


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org


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


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



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] Sad News......The Passing of Joe D'Andrea of West 21

2006-05-05 Thread Bob Moldashel

I just heard about this on the Part 15 list.

I am sure many here knew Joe D'Andrea of West 21 out of Asbury Park, NJ. 
He was definately one of the early starters in this industry.  I was 
lucky enough to know him, having built out his primary AP site and 
dealing with the FCC when they came knocking on his door a short time 
later. Joe was a great guy and I know I will miss him


More info here:   
http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060502/NEWS01/605020367/1004


-B-

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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Wimax Hardware for sale?

2006-05-05 Thread George Rogato

I'm doing 5MHz as well as 10MHz with Star-OS and Atheros.
I just ran a throughput test on a 10MHz 5 gig link and the test came 
back 2000+/- KB


George

Charles Wu wrote:

You can do a 5 MHz channel size on an Atheros chip (Off the top of my head,
Alvarion  Airaya have implemented it so far)

-Charles

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




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 10:11 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wimax Hardware for sale?


Patrick Leary wrote:


But which WiMAX are you talking about? There are lots of versions and 
the one version that no one has...and no one should be clamoring for 
just yet...is unlicensed WiMAX.






I am certainly looking for WiMAX features such as spectral efficiency in 
5 Ghz unlicensed gear right now. I don't really care about the standard.


-Matt


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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