Re: [WISPA] tubes....hmmm...

2006-09-22 Thread Scott Reed




I benefit by allowing customers to access AOL.  If they couldn't, I would have 10% less customers, 10% less revenue.  

Don't see a problem with what is quoted, but have not read the entire article.

Scott Reed 


Owner 


NewWays 


Wireless Networking 


Network Design, Installation and Administration 


www.nwwnet.net 




-- Original Message 
---

From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] 


To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 


Sent: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 06:57:53 -0400 


Subject: [WISPA] tubeshmmm... 



 I do hope he was kidding. 
 
 

as quoted from the article; 
 
 

                    
Jerry Grasso, Earthlink's director of  
 

communications, said the corporation benefits by allowing other Internet  

 

service providers 
 

                    to use the 
network and serve more customers. 
 
 

                    For 
example, Grasso said a user who prefers AOL  
 

could log on to AOL's Web site and not even notice they were using Earthlink 

 

                    
tubes to get it. 
 
 

Full story here; 
 

http://www.themilpitaspost.com/local/ci_4375098 
 

--- 
 

--- 
 
 

--  
 

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] tubes....hmmm...

2006-09-22 Thread Dawn DiPietro

Scott,

I was not referring to the AOL statement. That was just to clarify the 
person making the statement.

The reference to tubes in the second sentence.

Sorry I guess I was a little vague there.



Scott Reed wrote:

I benefit by allowing customers to access AOL.  If they couldn't, I 
would have 10% less customers, 10% less revenue. 

Don't see a problem with what is quoted, but have not read the entire 
article.


Scott Reed
Owner
NewWays
Wireless Networking
Network Design, Installation and Administration
www.nwwnet.net http://www.nwwnet.net/


*-- Original Message ---*
From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 06:57:53 -0400
Subject: [WISPA] tubeshmmm...

 I do hope he was kidding.

 as quoted from the article;

 Jerry Grasso, Earthlink's director of
 communications, said the corporation benefits by allowing other 
Internet

 service providers
to use the network and serve more customers.

For example, Grasso said a user who prefers AOL
 could log on to AOL's Web site and not even notice they were using 
Earthlink

 tubes to get it.

 Full story here;
 http://www.themilpitaspost.com/local/ci_4375098
 ---
 ---

 --
 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 ---*



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.7/454 - Release Date: 9/21/2006
 



---
---

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] tubes....hmmm...

2006-09-22 Thread Dawn DiPietro

All,

I guess I should not quit my day job. The reference was to the tubes 
Senator Stevens was so confused about.

ahh..back to work not telling jokes. ;-)

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro
NEW-ISP


Dawn DiPietro wrote:


Scott,

I was not referring to the AOL statement. That was just to clarify the 
person making the statement.

The reference to tubes in the second sentence.

Sorry I guess I was a little vague there.



Scott Reed wrote:

I benefit by allowing customers to access AOL.  If they couldn't, I 
would have 10% less customers, 10% less revenue.
Don't see a problem with what is quoted, but have not read the entire 
article.


Scott Reed
Owner
NewWays
Wireless Networking
Network Design, Installation and Administration
www.nwwnet.net http://www.nwwnet.net/


*-- Original Message ---*
From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 06:57:53 -0400
Subject: [WISPA] tubeshmmm...

 I do hope he was kidding.

 as quoted from the article;

 Jerry Grasso, Earthlink's director of
 communications, said the corporation benefits by allowing other 
Internet

 service providers
to use the network and serve more customers.

For example, Grasso said a user who prefers AOL
 could log on to AOL's Web site and not even notice they were using 
Earthlink

 tubes to get it.

 Full story here;
 http://www.themilpitaspost.com/local/ci_4375098
 ---
 ---

 --
 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 ---*



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.7/454 - Release Date: 
9/21/2006
 



---
---



---
---

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Outsourced installations

2006-09-22 Thread Pete Davis




We outsource most of our installs to our employees. The two techs
usually go out together, and split the $100. Its not
unheard of for my techs to make more money on a busy week than I take
in my salary, and I am an owner. 

They make $x/hr to do service calls, uninstalls, AP maintenance, etc
and if they can keep those caught up, we schedule an install (usually 1
or 2 /day for 2 techs). They are OFF the clock for installs, and get
$100/install. We provide the van, the tools, the gas, the CPE, and all
consumables (staples, caulk, cat5, ends, jacks, faceplates, etc). That
keeps them from usually turning in overtime. It gives them an incentive
for completing installs in a timely manner (2 hr install =
$25/hr/tech). Any service calls resulting from a faulty/sloppy install
in the first 30 days result in the installer techs going on site to fix
it on THEIR time, so they have an incentive to get it done right the
first time around. 


We have a few other local IT/phone/security system consultants who will
occasionally bring us a customer and offer to install them, since they
are an existing consulting customer for them anyway and usually selling
them a custom network/phone system/security system/audio system anyway.
We will usually give them $125 or $150 and provide the CPE and minimal
technical support. They will bring us the contract/customer worksheet
for our files, and we don't even have to go on site. Since we usually
charge $149 for the setup, we often let the consultant charge whatever
he wants, and keep it, and put in as many custom cable runs and
terminations as they can sell. We just start picking up the monthly
billing. 

Those are good relationships to have.

Pete Davis
NoDial.net



chris cooper wrote:

  
  
  
  
  Im sure this has been
covered before..
  
  Have any of you
outsourced installations? If so, has it
been a positive experience, how much do you pay a contractor?
  
  Thanks
  Chris
  
  

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.7/454 - Release Date: 9/21/2006
  




-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Outsourced installations

2006-09-22 Thread Scott Reed




You might want to check with your accountant.  I doubt the IRS is going to let you contract with people you also employ.  You may be liable for FICA, etc. for all the installs they have done.

Scott Reed 


Owner 


NewWays 


Wireless Networking 


Network Design, Installation and Administration 


www.nwwnet.net 




-- Original Message 
---

From: Pete Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] 


To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 


Sent: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 07:40:09 -0500 


Subject: Re: [WISPA] Outsourced installations 



 

We outsource most of our installs to our employees. The two 
techs
usually go out together, and split the $100. Its 
not
unheard of for my techs to make more money on a busy week than I 
take
in my salary, and I am an owner. 
 
 

They make $x/hr to do service calls, uninstalls, AP maintenance, 
etc
and if they can keep those caught up, we schedule an install (usually 
1
or 2 /day for 2 techs). They are OFF the clock for installs, and 
get
$100/install. We provide the van, the tools, the gas, the CPE, and 
all
consumables (staples, caulk, cat5, ends, jacks, faceplates, etc). 
That
keeps them from usually turning in overtime. It gives them an 
incentive
for completing installs in a timely manner (2 hr install 
=
$25/hr/tech). Any service calls resulting from a faulty/sloppy 
install
in the first 30 days result in the installer techs going on site to 
fix
it on THEIR time, so they have an incentive to get it done right 
the
first time around. 
 
 

We have a few other local IT/phone/security system consultants who 
will
occasionally bring us a customer and offer to install them, since 
they
are an existing consulting customer for them anyway and usually 
selling
them a custom network/phone system/security system/audio system 
anyway.
We will usually give them $125 or $150 and provide the CPE and 
minimal
technical support. They will bring us the contract/customer 
worksheet
for our files, and we don't even have to go on site. Since we 
usually
charge $149 for the setup, we often let the consultant charge 
whatever
he wants, and keep it, and put in as many custom cable runs 
and
terminations as they can sell. We just start picking up the 
monthly
billing. 
 
 

Those are good relationships to have.
 
 

Pete Davis
 

NoDial.net
 
 

chris cooper 
wrote:

  

  

  



  
 
 Im sure this has 
been
covered 
before…..
  
  

  
 Have any of 
you
outsourced installations?  If so, has 
it
been a positive experience, how much do you pay a 
contractor?
  
  

  
 Thanks
  
 Chris
  

  


No virus found in this incoming 
message.
Checked by AVG Free 
Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.7/454 - Release Date: 
9/21/2006
  



--- 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] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links

2006-09-22 Thread Brian Rohrbacher

Would GPS'd Canopy help?  If not, why?  Do others in the area use Canopy?

Brian

Tom DeReggi wrote:

Because, over the years I lost 100% of my high ARPU subs that used 
5830-ext in these areas. Yes that REALLY hurt the financials of my 
business.  The reason, is that its a high noise environment where 
we're attempting to deploy, and its impossible to offer zero packet 
loss solutions with TDD unless ARQ is available, in these situations.  
It makes it worse with all the WiFi gear going up, because you don;t 
know its there half the time, until its starts transmiting. (darn I 
hate contention based). Yes, of course, Beta ARQ firmware exists for 
the 5830-ext, but it can't be used reliably.  One of the big mistakes 
I made is I tried to use it, and learned that it locks up the SU 
radios every couple of days, when under heavy load. I did my testing 
of it on about 10 links. I started on 4 low use links, and it appeared 
to be stable, with only a random lockup every couple of weeks that I 
thought was something else. But after I installed it on the high 
volume links (other 6), they started locking up like crazy. (yes used 
most recent supposedly fixed firmware). Auto-Reboot devices causing 
two minutes of downtime for a reboot, is not adequate for High ARPU 
large office T1s and VOIP services. I'd rather not have the business, 
than to get my reputation tarnished by installing links the subscriber 
ends up cancelling and complaining about.  Evey T1 that gets cancelled 
means there is a MTU property owner involved that got the word (they 
make the referals) and a trusted advisor Computer guy (agents that 
give stamp of approval) that gets scared off, when they learn about 
the failure. Deals with partners that took months to build get thrown 
away over night, with a couple reboots from buggy ARQ firmware.


What you can't forget is that in PtMP, you can't encrease the antenna 
side of the AP. Not everything can be solved with the big antenna on 
SU side. Without ARQ one is toast.


Trango gave me so much hope when they developed ARQ for the 5800 
Foxes, which works fantastically. I'd select the Fox over a 5830-ext 
any day because of ARQ. But thats not good enough, I need ARQ and EXT 
connectors. Last year,  I made Trango aware that we needed ARQ on 
5830-EXT and Link-10s more than anything, and a year later, we still 
don't have it, and its not on their priority list.  That is 
frustrating for my business.  Customers don't wait in Urban Tier1 
markets.  When the Link doesn't go up in a few days, or their were a 
couple of noise issues that scare them, they have already placed their 
order with someone else.


What it has forced me to do, is slowly start swapping out my Trango 
APs, to make room (spectrum and antenna lease fees) for radios that 
can deliver packetlossless links.  Even Wifi gear can offer 
packetlossless links.  And its forced me to go back and re-negotiate 
my contracts with property owners to try and not pay per antenna, so I 
can get more antennas of larger size (PtP) for less money on the 
roofs.  Its a BIG waste of time, that I wouldn't have to do, if Trango 
added ARQ reliable ARQ to 5830-ext.


I'm still a Big Trango fan, and still am basing my business around its 
product, because of its value proposition, but I am loosing sales and 
getting more black eyes than I have to, because Trango does not have a 
EXT antenna product line that delivers reliable ARQ.  I haven't bought 
a new Trango 5830 AP in ages, I have to many pulls on the shelf 
waiting, when I need one.  If Trango never released ARQ for the FOX, I 
would have never kown what I was missing. But now that I have 
experienced it, I can't live without it.


The two biggest reasons, for lack of progress in my company is, 1) 
Waiting for technology, and 2) Waiting for finance to come through.  I 
can't count how much money I burned just waiting.  I don't want to 
wait any more. I'm tired of waiting. I don't have the energy to keep 
waiting. I want it now.  I need it now.  This is a time to market 
business, where there is a domino effect of disaster tied to waiting.


So when a company like Alvarion or Valemont come out with a product 
that will do the job, and I no longer have to wait, I see no reason to 
wait.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links



Tom,

I hate to say this, but I think you missed the boat on your three 
$500/mo subs. Trango still offers a 5830-EXT unit for $729 (retail) 
that would have allowed you the external antenna that was so critical 
for these links. Why did you not spend the $700 and have them paid 
for in less than two months?


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


I'm glad to hear that John found success with Alvarion.
However, his post does 

Re: [WISPA] Outsourced installations

2006-09-22 Thread Matt Larsen - Lists
I started out with having my own installers, vans, equipment etc., but 
have switched over to outsourcing almost all of our installations.


At this time last year, I had two different outsourced installers going 
at the same time. We did 80 installs last September and our cost was a 
little bit more than what we were paying our own installers. The real 
difference came when we had a slow month (30-40 installs) and we only 
had to pay for the installs that were completed. One of the installers 
we worked with left to get a higher paying job, and it worked out well 
for all of us. Except for the fact that we have had to go out and redo 
about 25 of his installs because he was mounting too low in the houses 
or putting radios behind trees in the winter. That kind of sucked. The 
other installers has a little bit of a language barrier, being from Peru 
- and was kind of sloppy with his installs at first. Over the long run, 
he has turned out to be great, as he has stepped up and done everything 
we have asked him to do and improved the quality of his work 
considerably along the way. I now give him everything that I can, 
including service calls.


It has been a much better situation to be able to outsource to a good 
contractor. Our successful install rate is much higher and we have been 
able to focus on running and growing our network instead of stupid 
stuff. I am paying $90 to $120 per install (depending on mileage, some 
places are 300 miles round trip), $35 per service call and $35 for 
de-installs. That is working very well for me.


Matt Larsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Pete Davis wrote:
We outsource most of our installs to our employees. The two techs 
usually go out together, and split the $100. Its not unheard of for my 
techs to make more money on a busy week than I take in my salary, and 
I am an owner.


They make $x/hr to do service calls, uninstalls, AP maintenance, etc 
and if they can keep those caught up, we schedule an install (usually 
1 or 2 /day for 2 techs). They are OFF the clock for installs, and get 
$100/install. We provide the van, the tools, the gas, the CPE, and all 
consumables (staples, caulk, cat5, ends, jacks, faceplates, etc). That 
keeps them from usually turning in overtime. It gives them an 
incentive for completing installs in a timely manner (2 hr install = 
$25/hr/tech). Any service calls resulting from a faulty/sloppy install 
in the first 30 days result in the installer techs going on site to 
fix it on THEIR time, so they have an incentive to get it done right 
the first time around.



We have a few other local IT/phone/security system consultants who 
will occasionally bring us a customer and offer to install them, since 
they are an existing consulting customer for them anyway and usually 
selling them a custom network/phone system/security system/audio 
system anyway. We will usually give them $125 or $150 and provide the 
CPE and minimal technical support. They will bring us the 
contract/customer worksheet for our files, and we don't even have to 
go on site. Since we usually charge $149 for the setup, we often let 
the consultant charge whatever he wants, and keep it, and put in as 
many custom cable runs and terminations as they can sell. We just 
start picking up the monthly billing.


Those are good relationships to have.

Pete Davis
NoDial.net



chris cooper wrote:


Im sure this has been covered before…..

Have any of you outsourced installations? If so, has it been a 
positive experience, how much do you pay a contractor?


Thanks

Chris

 
No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.7/454 - Release Date: 9/21/2006
  




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Outsourced installations

2006-09-22 Thread Rick Harnish
We have two outsourced installers.  They are paid $100/install.  They supply
their own tools, gas, insurance and vehicle.  We furnish supplies they need.
They also fill in their time with Dish and DirecTV installs.  Some sourced
from our company, some sourced from other shops.  

Once you figure the cost of vans, fuel, maintenance, insurance, FICA,
liability, tools, and everything else, it makes more sense to me to continue
using outsourced help.  

Rick Harnish
President
OnlyInternet Broadband  Wireless, Inc.
260-827-2482
Founding Member of WISPA


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Larsen - Lists
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 11:02 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Outsourced installations

I started out with having my own installers, vans, equipment etc., but 
have switched over to outsourcing almost all of our installations.

At this time last year, I had two different outsourced installers going 
at the same time. We did 80 installs last September and our cost was a 
little bit more than what we were paying our own installers. The real 
difference came when we had a slow month (30-40 installs) and we only 
had to pay for the installs that were completed. One of the installers 
we worked with left to get a higher paying job, and it worked out well 
for all of us. Except for the fact that we have had to go out and redo 
about 25 of his installs because he was mounting too low in the houses 
or putting radios behind trees in the winter. That kind of sucked. The 
other installers has a little bit of a language barrier, being from Peru 
- and was kind of sloppy with his installs at first. Over the long run, 
he has turned out to be great, as he has stepped up and done everything 
we have asked him to do and improved the quality of his work 
considerably along the way. I now give him everything that I can, 
including service calls.

It has been a much better situation to be able to outsource to a good 
contractor. Our successful install rate is much higher and we have been 
able to focus on running and growing our network instead of stupid 
stuff. I am paying $90 to $120 per install (depending on mileage, some 
places are 300 miles round trip), $35 per service call and $35 for 
de-installs. That is working very well for me.

Matt Larsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Pete Davis wrote:
 We outsource most of our installs to our employees. The two techs 
 usually go out together, and split the $100. Its not unheard of for my 
 techs to make more money on a busy week than I take in my salary, and 
 I am an owner.

 They make $x/hr to do service calls, uninstalls, AP maintenance, etc 
 and if they can keep those caught up, we schedule an install (usually 
 1 or 2 /day for 2 techs). They are OFF the clock for installs, and get 
 $100/install. We provide the van, the tools, the gas, the CPE, and all 
 consumables (staples, caulk, cat5, ends, jacks, faceplates, etc). That 
 keeps them from usually turning in overtime. It gives them an 
 incentive for completing installs in a timely manner (2 hr install = 
 $25/hr/tech). Any service calls resulting from a faulty/sloppy install 
 in the first 30 days result in the installer techs going on site to 
 fix it on THEIR time, so they have an incentive to get it done right 
 the first time around.


 We have a few other local IT/phone/security system consultants who 
 will occasionally bring us a customer and offer to install them, since 
 they are an existing consulting customer for them anyway and usually 
 selling them a custom network/phone system/security system/audio 
 system anyway. We will usually give them $125 or $150 and provide the 
 CPE and minimal technical support. They will bring us the 
 contract/customer worksheet for our files, and we don't even have to 
 go on site. Since we usually charge $149 for the setup, we often let 
 the consultant charge whatever he wants, and keep it, and put in as 
 many custom cable runs and terminations as they can sell. We just 
 start picking up the monthly billing.

 Those are good relationships to have.

 Pete Davis
 NoDial.net



 chris cooper wrote:

 Im sure this has been covered before...

 Have any of you outsourced installations? If so, has it been a 
 positive experience, how much do you pay a contractor?

 Thanks

 Chris

  
 No virus found in this incoming message.
 Checked by AVG Free Edition.
 Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.7/454 - Release Date: 9/21/2006
   


-- 
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] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links

2006-09-22 Thread Tom DeReggi
The answer to your question is that there is not a preferred option.  In 
some cases I don't have an option and just lose the prospect (as 
unservable).  The industry is in a stagnet state, where manufacturers are 
not delivering an ideal product that WISPs need. (At least that I want). 
Any product that I choose as an alternative has a trade off.  Understand 
that there are also cost justification barriers not just technical.  When I 
can keep the prospect, its often because I have cost justified installing a 
dedicated PTP for them. (I don;t have that option for every one based on 
lease fees for roof access and available spectrum).  Trying to customize the 
FOX for external antenna is a major pain in the neck, not to mention 
illegal, or Non-FCC compliant.  However, out of desperation, I have on 
occassion been able to successfully customize a FOX 5580, to use an ext 
connector, and paired it up with a MTI dual Pol antenna or Gabriel Dual Pol.
The fun in this industry goes away, when the only way to get the job done, 
is to illegally hack a CPE, for jobs.  Its not my job to be the 
manufacturer.


The good news is that manufacturers are comming closer and closer to 
offering equivellent value propositions.
The most promising products of Fall 2006, I feel is StarOS V3 on WAR, 
because of their low cost, and recent addition of true Bridging and Large 
MTU for adequate VLAN support.
I also think, Alvarion has a winner with its new V4 firmware products, but I 
need to improve my finance options, to be able to use Alvarion network wide.


What I'd rather have happen, is Trango fix the problem. It would only cost 
them a few thousand to fix the problem on their end, and will cost me a 
million to rebuild my network (which isn't going to happen).


Thats the problem... What do you do when the product line you want fixed, is 
still the best choice in many cases overall ? There is no leverage to effect 
change.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 9:00 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links



Tom, so what you are changing the Trangos to ?

Also, you can hack yourself a EXT Fox ...

Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 8:25 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links

Because, over the years I lost 100% of my high ARPU subs that used 
5830-ext

in these areas. Yes that REALLY hurt the financials of my business.  The
reason, is that its a high noise environment where we're attempting to
deploy, and its impossible to offer zero packet loss solutions with TDD
unless ARQ is available, in these situations.  It makes it worse with all
the WiFi gear going up, because you don;t know its there half the time,
until its starts transmiting. (darn I hate contention based). Yes, of
course, Beta ARQ firmware exists for the 5830-ext, but it can't be used
reliably.  One of the big mistakes I made is I tried to use it, and 
learned
that it locks up the SU radios every couple of days, when under heavy 
load.
I did my testing of it on about 10 links. I started on 4 low use links, 
and

it appeared to be stable, with only a random lockup every couple of weeks
that I thought was something else. But after I installed it on the high
volume links (other 6), they started locking up like crazy. (yes used most
recent supposedly fixed firmware). Auto-Reboot devices causing two minutes
of downtime for a reboot, is not adequate for High ARPU large office T1s 
and


VOIP services. I'd rather not have the business, than to get my reputation
tarnished by installing links the subscriber ends up cancelling and
complaining about.  Evey T1 that gets cancelled means there is a MTU
property owner involved that got the word (they make the referals) and a
trusted advisor Computer guy (agents that give stamp of approval) that 
gets
scared off, when they learn about the failure. Deals with partners that 
took


months to build get thrown away over night, with a couple reboots from 
buggy


ARQ firmware.

What you can't forget is that in PtMP, you can't encrease the antenna side
of the AP. Not everything can be solved with the big antenna on SU side.
Without ARQ one is toast.

Trango gave me so much hope when they developed ARQ for the 5800 Foxes,
which works fantastically. I'd select the Fox over a 5830-ext any day
because of ARQ. But thats not good enough, I need ARQ and EXT connectors.
Last year,  I made Trango aware that we needed ARQ on 5830-EXT and 
Link-10s
more than anything, and a year later, we still don't have it, and its not 
on


their priority list.  That is 

Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links

2006-09-22 Thread Travis Johnson

Tom,

You won't customize a Fox unit because it's not FCC compliant, yet you 
are running StarOS on WAR boards which is also not FCC compliant. ;)


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:

The answer to your question is that there is not a preferred option.  
In some cases I don't have an option and just lose the prospect (as 
unservable).  The industry is in a stagnet state, where manufacturers 
are not delivering an ideal product that WISPs need. (At least that I 
want). Any product that I choose as an alternative has a trade off.  
Understand that there are also cost justification barriers not just 
technical.  When I can keep the prospect, its often because I have 
cost justified installing a dedicated PTP for them. (I don;t have that 
option for every one based on lease fees for roof access and available 
spectrum).  Trying to customize the FOX for external antenna is a 
major pain in the neck, not to mention illegal, or Non-FCC compliant.  
However, out of desperation, I have on occassion been able to 
successfully customize a FOX 5580, to use an ext connector, and paired 
it up with a MTI dual Pol antenna or Gabriel Dual Pol.
The fun in this industry goes away, when the only way to get the job 
done, is to illegally hack a CPE, for jobs.  Its not my job to be the 
manufacturer.


The good news is that manufacturers are comming closer and closer to 
offering equivellent value propositions.
The most promising products of Fall 2006, I feel is StarOS V3 on WAR, 
because of their low cost, and recent addition of true Bridging and 
Large MTU for adequate VLAN support.
I also think, Alvarion has a winner with its new V4 firmware products, 
but I need to improve my finance options, to be able to use Alvarion 
network wide.


What I'd rather have happen, is Trango fix the problem. It would only 
cost them a few thousand to fix the problem on their end, and will 
cost me a million to rebuild my network (which isn't going to happen).


Thats the problem... What do you do when the product line you want 
fixed, is still the best choice in many cases overall ? There is no 
leverage to effect change.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Gino A. Villarini 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 9:00 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links



Tom, so what you are changing the Trangos to ?

Also, you can hack yourself a EXT Fox ...

Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 8:25 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links

Because, over the years I lost 100% of my high ARPU subs that used 
5830-ext

in these areas. Yes that REALLY hurt the financials of my business.  The
reason, is that its a high noise environment where we're attempting to
deploy, and its impossible to offer zero packet loss solutions with TDD
unless ARQ is available, in these situations.  It makes it worse with 
all

the WiFi gear going up, because you don;t know its there half the time,
until its starts transmiting. (darn I hate contention based). Yes, of
course, Beta ARQ firmware exists for the 5830-ext, but it can't be used
reliably.  One of the big mistakes I made is I tried to use it, and 
learned
that it locks up the SU radios every couple of days, when under heavy 
load.
I did my testing of it on about 10 links. I started on 4 low use 
links, and
it appeared to be stable, with only a random lockup every couple of 
weeks

that I thought was something else. But after I installed it on the high
volume links (other 6), they started locking up like crazy. (yes used 
most
recent supposedly fixed firmware). Auto-Reboot devices causing two 
minutes
of downtime for a reboot, is not adequate for High ARPU large office 
T1s and


VOIP services. I'd rather not have the business, than to get my 
reputation

tarnished by installing links the subscriber ends up cancelling and
complaining about.  Evey T1 that gets cancelled means there is a MTU
property owner involved that got the word (they make the referals) and a
trusted advisor Computer guy (agents that give stamp of approval) 
that gets
scared off, when they learn about the failure. Deals with partners 
that took


months to build get thrown away over night, with a couple reboots 
from buggy


ARQ firmware.

What you can't forget is that in PtMP, you can't encrease the antenna 
side

of the AP. Not everything can be solved with the big antenna on SU side.
Without ARQ one is toast.

Trango gave me so much hope when they developed ARQ for the 5800 Foxes,
which works fantastically. I'd select the Fox over a 5830-ext any day
because of ARQ. But thats not good enough, I need ARQ and EXT 

Re: [WISPA] PTP Link Recommendations - The Future of WISPs

2006-09-22 Thread Tom DeReggi

Butch,

I do not disagree with your statements.
I'm jsut saying readers may misinterperete the post if my statements were 
not added.


If the intend is to do FDX, Using OFDM to accomplish it is one easy way to 
do it.


The question that I was challenging is in what cases FDX is appropriate.
It can be risky to rely on two channels in a noisy environment.  What 
happens if those channels develop interference? What channels would you move 
to?
Anyone can get a good link on day one, but what is the plan for preventing 
future disasters?


I'm starting to justify FDX now that 10Mhz channels are becoming available. 
Two 10Mhz channels has less risk and more options than one 20 Mhz channel.


When we first got into this business, we really thought we were smart. We 
were trying all kind of neat things. But at the end of the day, we learned 
reasons why the rest of the world wasn't doing it already.  Its humbling for 
me to admit that publically, but I'm a smarter person for realizing it.  We 
were doing a lot with OFDM in the early years. The idea was to use two 
10mbps Trangos on two freqs to reach 20 mbps.  Sometimes Full Duplex, Some 
times bonded Half Duplex.  The end result is the noise floor got to high, 
and it was to hard to move channels around, when needing to cater to what 
channel was deployed adjacent, taking up two channels for a single link. 
Selecting FDX might have meant not serving a particular direction.   The 
problem is that when a channel gets packet loss, OSPF doesn't know what to 
do, when its up and when its down.  We were setting up OSPF so that they 
took different paths with full duplex immulated but if one of the links went 
down, the second path (by OSPF) was the other channel converting it to half 
duplex in the emergency state.


In general we deliver packet loss less links. But its not just a factor of 
the technology to accomplish that in noisy areas. Its strategy of the WISP. 
Using more spectrum for a task than one needs to, can be wasteful, and give 
WISPs less options for selecting the channels that will allow them to use 
radios that will prevent the packet loss.


Again, excellent arguements have been made on this list, specifically by 
Matt Liotta and Lonnie, on how using 10Mhz channels or GPS syncing with Full 
Duplex for a link can actually be more spectrum efficient than 20Mhz 
channels in Half Duplex.  In real world I have not seen that yet, but in 
theory it all made sense.  Its actually those debates that got me thinking 
to start doing more PtP links on my network and attempting spectrum re-use, 
that I am now more effectively accomplishing.


My general rule is Do you need 20 mbps for the link? Do you demand Full 
Duplex? If the answer to both of these question is yes, and it may be for 
dominately VOIP applications, then it may very well be worth using OSPF for 
FDX deployments.  But there is risk in doing it.  Because if I really only 
need 10 mbps, or can survive with half duplex, I'd rather know that if any 
of my links encounter interference, that it only takes down half the 
customers, not all the customers, because I have customers spread out across 
more radios.  Having two radios operating independantly using half duplex, 
allows redundancy on the fly, when needed.


My end of the day conclusion was, if in Rural or Licensed, go for it, but 
otherwise I wouldn't do FDX unless doing it with 10Mhz channel size.  The 
exception to this is that when 5.4Ghz gear is legal, there are many more 
available channels where it is less risky to take two channels for a link.


5.4Ghz will be the spectrum that revolutionizes FDX and PTP links in 
Urban/Suburban America. 5.4Ghz is almost useless in PtMP on small sectors. 
But it allows PTP links to go 7 miles with margin. Can you think of it now, 
10Mhz channels on 100% clear fresh spectrum on day 1, thats 50 new channels, 
including polarity.  Or 25 new channels using smart Dual Pol NLOS antennas.
It will be the year of 2 ft dishes, to go the distance with low power 
spectrum.


2007 will be the year of smart routing.  Not MESH as the world typically 
knows as MESH, but MESH as the definition,  a network with two paths or 
more.  PTP reduces latency over PTMP systems, allowing more hops to deliver 
the same QOS.  Networks will be designed to go to building to buidling more 
often.  WISPS will start to install two antennas as a requirement for every 
new install. Networks will be run layers on top of each other in parallel, 
so customers have fewest number of hops to the transit locations, but so 
more buildings can be served.  In other words it won't be one large mesh, it 
will be many small mesh segments, with engineered PTP paths.


This is not a new idea, just equipment options and costs have changed to 
allow it to become viable, and previous mass deployment and adoption, 
demanding it from the providers. The secret to it all is smart routing. It 
will come, or peoiple will leave routing and go back to layer2 

Re: [WISPA] Outsourced installations

2006-09-22 Thread Mario Pommier

Matt, Pete,
   Can you state what kinds of radios these installs involve? are these 
PoE radios, what brand, what kind of terrain you're installing in, 
rural/metro area?  Is grounding being done?  What if they install a 
non-pen mount?  Same price?  Where does install end: i.e. do they ahve 
to do an indoor run to where the network equipment is?

   It would help to gauge what's involved.
   Thanks.
   BTW, we haven't gone to outsourcing, not yet anyway.

Mario

Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:

I started out with having my own installers, vans, equipment etc., but 
have switched over to outsourcing almost all of our installations.


At this time last year, I had two different outsourced installers 
going at the same time. We did 80 installs last September and our cost 
was a little bit more than what we were paying our own installers. The 
real difference came when we had a slow month (30-40 installs) and we 
only had to pay for the installs that were completed. One of the 
installers we worked with left to get a higher paying job, and it 
worked out well for all of us. Except for the fact that we have had to 
go out and redo about 25 of his installs because he was mounting too 
low in the houses or putting radios behind trees in the winter. That 
kind of sucked. The other installers has a little bit of a language 
barrier, being from Peru - and was kind of sloppy with his installs at 
first. Over the long run, he has turned out to be great, as he has 
stepped up and done everything we have asked him to do and improved 
the quality of his work considerably along the way. I now give him 
everything that I can, including service calls.


It has been a much better situation to be able to outsource to a good 
contractor. Our successful install rate is much higher and we have 
been able to focus on running and growing our network instead of 
stupid stuff. I am paying $90 to $120 per install (depending on 
mileage, some places are 300 miles round trip), $35 per service call 
and $35 for de-installs. That is working very well for me.


Matt Larsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Pete Davis wrote:

We outsource most of our installs to our employees. The two techs 
usually go out together, and split the $100. Its not unheard of for 
my techs to make more money on a busy week than I take in my salary, 
and I am an owner.


They make $x/hr to do service calls, uninstalls, AP maintenance, etc 
and if they can keep those caught up, we schedule an install (usually 
1 or 2 /day for 2 techs). They are OFF the clock for installs, and 
get $100/install. We provide the van, the tools, the gas, the CPE, 
and all consumables (staples, caulk, cat5, ends, jacks, faceplates, 
etc). That keeps them from usually turning in overtime. It gives them 
an incentive for completing installs in a timely manner (2 hr install 
= $25/hr/tech). Any service calls resulting from a faulty/sloppy 
install in the first 30 days result in the installer techs going on 
site to fix it on THEIR time, so they have an incentive to get it 
done right the first time around.



We have a few other local IT/phone/security system consultants who 
will occasionally bring us a customer and offer to install them, 
since they are an existing consulting customer for them anyway and 
usually selling them a custom network/phone system/security 
system/audio system anyway. We will usually give them $125 or $150 
and provide the CPE and minimal technical support. They will bring us 
the contract/customer worksheet for our files, and we don't even have 
to go on site. Since we usually charge $149 for the setup, we often 
let the consultant charge whatever he wants, and keep it, and put in 
as many custom cable runs and terminations as they can sell. We just 
start picking up the monthly billing.


Those are good relationships to have.

Pete Davis
NoDial.net



chris cooper wrote:



Im sure this has been covered before…..

Have any of you outsourced installations? If so, has it been a 
positive experience, how much do you pay a contractor?


Thanks

Chris

 
No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.7/454 - Release Date: 
9/21/2006
  









--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] PTP Link Recommendations - The Future of WISPs

2006-09-22 Thread Jeff Broadwick
I don't know if you are right or wrong Tom...only time will tell...but I'm
clapping! 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 2:15 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] PTP Link Recommendations - The Future of WISPs

Butch,

I do not disagree with your statements.
I'm jsut saying readers may misinterperete the post if my statements were
not added.

If the intend is to do FDX, Using OFDM to accomplish it is one easy way to
do it.

The question that I was challenging is in what cases FDX is appropriate.
It can be risky to rely on two channels in a noisy environment.  What
happens if those channels develop interference? What channels would you move
to?
Anyone can get a good link on day one, but what is the plan for preventing
future disasters?

I'm starting to justify FDX now that 10Mhz channels are becoming available. 
Two 10Mhz channels has less risk and more options than one 20 Mhz channel.

When we first got into this business, we really thought we were smart. We
were trying all kind of neat things. But at the end of the day, we learned
reasons why the rest of the world wasn't doing it already.  Its humbling for
me to admit that publically, but I'm a smarter person for realizing it.  We
were doing a lot with OFDM in the early years. The idea was to use two
10mbps Trangos on two freqs to reach 20 mbps.  Sometimes Full Duplex, Some
times bonded Half Duplex.  The end result is the noise floor got to high,
and it was to hard to move channels around, when needing to cater to what
channel was deployed adjacent, taking up two channels for a single link. 
Selecting FDX might have meant not serving a particular direction.   The 
problem is that when a channel gets packet loss, OSPF doesn't know what to
do, when its up and when its down.  We were setting up OSPF so that they
took different paths with full duplex immulated but if one of the links went
down, the second path (by OSPF) was the other channel converting it to half
duplex in the emergency state.

In general we deliver packet loss less links. But its not just a factor of
the technology to accomplish that in noisy areas. Its strategy of the WISP. 
Using more spectrum for a task than one needs to, can be wasteful, and give
WISPs less options for selecting the channels that will allow them to use
radios that will prevent the packet loss.

Again, excellent arguements have been made on this list, specifically by
Matt Liotta and Lonnie, on how using 10Mhz channels or GPS syncing with Full
Duplex for a link can actually be more spectrum efficient than 20Mhz
channels in Half Duplex.  In real world I have not seen that yet, but in
theory it all made sense.  Its actually those debates that got me thinking
to start doing more PtP links on my network and attempting spectrum re-use,
that I am now more effectively accomplishing.

My general rule is Do you need 20 mbps for the link? Do you demand Full
Duplex? If the answer to both of these question is yes, and it may be for
dominately VOIP applications, then it may very well be worth using OSPF for
FDX deployments.  But there is risk in doing it.  Because if I really only
need 10 mbps, or can survive with half duplex, I'd rather know that if any
of my links encounter interference, that it only takes down half the
customers, not all the customers, because I have customers spread out across
more radios.  Having two radios operating independantly using half duplex,
allows redundancy on the fly, when needed.

My end of the day conclusion was, if in Rural or Licensed, go for it, but
otherwise I wouldn't do FDX unless doing it with 10Mhz channel size.  The
exception to this is that when 5.4Ghz gear is legal, there are many more
available channels where it is less risky to take two channels for a link.

5.4Ghz will be the spectrum that revolutionizes FDX and PTP links in
Urban/Suburban America. 5.4Ghz is almost useless in PtMP on small sectors. 
But it allows PTP links to go 7 miles with margin. Can you think of it now,
10Mhz channels on 100% clear fresh spectrum on day 1, thats 50 new channels,
including polarity.  Or 25 new channels using smart Dual Pol NLOS antennas.
It will be the year of 2 ft dishes, to go the distance with low power
spectrum.

2007 will be the year of smart routing.  Not MESH as the world typically
knows as MESH, but MESH as the definition,  a network with two paths or
more.  PTP reduces latency over PTMP systems, allowing more hops to deliver
the same QOS.  Networks will be designed to go to building to buidling more
often.  WISPS will start to install two antennas as a requirement for every
new install. Networks will be run layers on top of each other in parallel,
so customers have fewest number of hops to the transit locations, but so
more buildings can be served.  In other words it won't be one large mesh, it
will be many small mesh segments, with engineered PTP paths.

This is not a new idea, 

Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links

2006-09-22 Thread Tom DeReggi
As much as I've protested Canopy, (in my mind poor design), the smaller the 
gaps are getting.
The problem is that Trango kept degrading their gear more and more like 
Canopy. And Canopy kept improving their gear.

Trango still wins, because Trango is less expensive.
Canopy still has some of the traits that I also don't like about Trango 
(darn DSS dish antennas).


My goal is to gain the High Arpu business.  Who the winner will be is not a 
dying breed product, but the manufacturer that steps up to the plate to 
deliver a complete product.
I want to be done with half-assed antennas.   What I've learned is that the 
ANTENNA IS JUST AS IMPORTANT AS THE RADIO.


Trango's strength had always been their internal antennas and options for 
good external ones.


On a side note, Does Canopy 5.8G CPEs have external connectors?

The truth is, I want the cheap CPE antenna option, for half my installs, 
cause it saves me money and thats all I need to do the job. I just don't 
want to give up the flexibilty to optimize reliabitly for the other 50%.


The other thing you forget is, I'd now rather fight it out, and stay put on 
the channel, doesn't mean that I will win.  With Trango, I still have the 
option to change my mind, when somebody beats me up, and I need to go run to 
another channel or polarity. Its always good to have a backup plan.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


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

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 11:24 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links


snip
What I'm learning is that as my business grows, the abilty to change and
move (channel options) is becoming less important that the abilty to
effectively battle it out. The reason is that if every time I hiot noise, I
move away from the channel, eventually others take those channels., until
they are all gone, and their is no where else to move to. Sometimes its
better to claim the space and say, I'm here first, go find another
channel to play on.  And keep fighting back with better antennas. As the
antenna grows, you over power the interference, but the important point is,
you reduce the interference to you and them, by restricting the beamwidth.
The high power via antenna you go, the more courtious it is to the other
player to attempt avoidence of signals interfering.  Alvarion gives that
advantage.
/snip

Tom,

Based on that observation...shouldn't you be looking at Canopy ducking

-Charles

---
WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
Coming to a City Near You
http://www.winog.com

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.6/453 - Release Date: 9/20/2006


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] tubes....hmmm...

2006-09-22 Thread Tom DeReggi

Got it.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 7:33 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] tubeshmmm...



All,

I guess I should not quit my day job. The reference was to the tubes 
Senator Stevens was so confused about.

ahh..back to work not telling jokes. ;-)

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro
NEW-ISP


Dawn DiPietro wrote:


Scott,

I was not referring to the AOL statement. That was just to clarify the 
person making the statement.

The reference to tubes in the second sentence.

Sorry I guess I was a little vague there.



Scott Reed wrote:

I benefit by allowing customers to access AOL.  If they couldn't, I 
would have 10% less customers, 10% less revenue.
Don't see a problem with what is quoted, but have not read the entire 
article.


Scott Reed
Owner
NewWays
Wireless Networking
Network Design, Installation and Administration
www.nwwnet.net http://www.nwwnet.net/


*-- Original Message ---*
From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 06:57:53 -0400
Subject: [WISPA] tubeshmmm...

 I do hope he was kidding.

 as quoted from the article;

 Jerry Grasso, Earthlink's director of
 communications, said the corporation benefits by allowing other
Internet
 service providers
to use the network and serve more customers.

For example, Grasso said a user who prefers AOL
 could log on to AOL's Web site and not even notice they were using
Earthlink
 tubes to get it.

 Full story here;
 http://www.themilpitaspost.com/local/ci_4375098
 ---
 ---

 --
 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 ---*



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.7/454 - Release Date: 
9/21/2006




---
---



---
---

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.6/453 - Release Date: 9/20/2006



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links

2006-09-22 Thread Tom DeReggi
For the golden answer. GPS only helps you design your own network, and I 
already take care to use best practices for my own network, when its comming 
from myself.
Its all the other people that you have to worry about.   Do you think Public 
safety or department of transportation is using GPS sync for all their 
street pole omnis? Do you think all  the corporate end user PTP links being 
sold to them by clueless network integrators are GPS syncing? NOT!


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links



Would GPS'd Canopy help?  If not, why?  Do others in the area use Canopy?

Brian

Tom DeReggi wrote:

Because, over the years I lost 100% of my high ARPU subs that used 
5830-ext in these areas. Yes that REALLY hurt the financials of my 
business.  The reason, is that its a high noise environment where we're 
attempting to deploy, and its impossible to offer zero packet loss 
solutions with TDD unless ARQ is available, in these situations.  It 
makes it worse with all the WiFi gear going up, because you don;t know 
its there half the time, until its starts transmiting. (darn I hate 
contention based). Yes, of course, Beta ARQ firmware exists for the 
5830-ext, but it can't be used reliably.  One of the big mistakes I made 
is I tried to use it, and learned that it locks up the SU radios every 
couple of days, when under heavy load. I did my testing of it on about 10 
links. I started on 4 low use links, and it appeared to be stable, with 
only a random lockup every couple of weeks that I thought was something 
else. But after I installed it on the high volume links (other 6), they 
started locking up like crazy. (yes used most recent supposedly fixed 
firmware). Auto-Reboot devices causing two minutes of downtime for a 
reboot, is not adequate for High ARPU large office T1s and VOIP services. 
I'd rather not have the business, than to get my reputation tarnished by 
installing links the subscriber ends up cancelling and complaining about. 
Evey T1 that gets cancelled means there is a MTU property owner involved 
that got the word (they make the referals) and a trusted advisor Computer 
guy (agents that give stamp of approval) that gets scared off, when they 
learn about the failure. Deals with partners that took months to build 
get thrown away over night, with a couple reboots from buggy ARQ 
firmware.


What you can't forget is that in PtMP, you can't encrease the antenna 
side of the AP. Not everything can be solved with the big antenna on SU 
side. Without ARQ one is toast.


Trango gave me so much hope when they developed ARQ for the 5800 Foxes, 
which works fantastically. I'd select the Fox over a 5830-ext any day 
because of ARQ. But thats not good enough, I need ARQ and EXT connectors. 
Last year,  I made Trango aware that we needed ARQ on 5830-EXT and 
Link-10s more than anything, and a year later, we still don't have it, 
and its not on their priority list.  That is frustrating for my business. 
Customers don't wait in Urban Tier1 markets.  When the Link doesn't go up 
in a few days, or their were a couple of noise issues that scare them, 
they have already placed their order with someone else.


What it has forced me to do, is slowly start swapping out my Trango APs, 
to make room (spectrum and antenna lease fees) for radios that can 
deliver packetlossless links.  Even Wifi gear can offer packetlossless 
links.  And its forced me to go back and re-negotiate my contracts with 
property owners to try and not pay per antenna, so I can get more 
antennas of larger size (PtP) for less money on the roofs.  Its a BIG 
waste of time, that I wouldn't have to do, if Trango added ARQ reliable 
ARQ to 5830-ext.


I'm still a Big Trango fan, and still am basing my business around its 
product, because of its value proposition, but I am loosing sales and 
getting more black eyes than I have to, because Trango does not have a 
EXT antenna product line that delivers reliable ARQ.  I haven't bought a 
new Trango 5830 AP in ages, I have to many pulls on the shelf waiting, 
when I need one.  If Trango never released ARQ for the FOX, I would have 
never kown what I was missing. But now that I have experienced it, I 
can't live without it.


The two biggest reasons, for lack of progress in my company is, 1) 
Waiting for technology, and 2) Waiting for finance to come through.  I 
can't count how much money I burned just waiting.  I don't want to wait 
any more. I'm tired of waiting. I don't have the energy to keep waiting. 
I want it now.  I need it now.  This is a time to market business, where 
there is a domino effect of disaster tied to waiting.


So when a company like Alvarion or Valemont come out with a product that 
will do the job, and I no longer have to 

RE: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links

2006-09-22 Thread Patrick Leary
My goal is to gain the High Arpu business.

Tom, that is exactly where Alvarion excels and why it is my opinion that
the more premium an operator becomes in the total quality of their
service, the more likely an operator is to choose Alvarion. And these
customers have different service level expectations that go far beyond
the speed. They require a reliable connection that they can essentially
forget about. Any connection that draws the attention of the end
customer is a bad connection, because something is happening that forces
them to deal with it. That is a distraction. That leads to a sense of
insecurity, which is something a high ARPU customer will not tolerate
over time.

So Alvarion radios are built and given feature sets that allow an
extreme level of customization (lots of depth in the VLAN abilities for
example) and reliability (both physical and in terms of link stability).
As well, as an operator you are able to pull a huge variety of
statistics to reduce trouble shooting time when you do have to trouble
shoot.

And on the basic level, the way our radios use the air means we scan
scale high ARPU customers better per sector than any other UL brand.
That is especially true is you are offering more than just high speed
Internet access such as VLANs and services like VoIP. 

It is plenty true that there have been numerous small WISPs that have
left Alvarion (something I am going to work hard to change), but I have
never met a SCALED operator that switch FROM Alvarion. I have met
countless though that have moved to us as they have reached the stage
where they need to become higher end providers. You are a prototypical
example of such a WISP. John's is such a case. Marty's Roadstar is one
of the most classic examples, having moved from 802.11b to Trango to
Alvarion. 

Now for sure we are not perfect and we have our share of quirks, but we
are out there still investing heavily (millions) in this unlicensed
market, including on the product front. And we are fiscally very healthy
and always have been. We are a horse a long term operator can tie his
cart to. And I cannot understate how important that is. Many companies
and all the huge telecom equipment providers (including Moto) are not
investing in fixed now hardly at all, much less unlicensed fixed. 

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







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] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links

2006-09-22 Thread Matt Liotta
I believe we have one of the highest APRUs in the business and we use 
Canopy (including Orthogon). We do like the Trango Atlas, but only for 
limited deployment.


I don't really think the price of the radio correlates to the revenue of 
the service.


-Matt

Tom DeReggi wrote:
As much as I've protested Canopy, (in my mind poor design), the 
smaller the gaps are getting.
The problem is that Trango kept degrading their gear more and more 
like Canopy. And Canopy kept improving their gear.

Trango still wins, because Trango is less expensive.
Canopy still has some of the traits that I also don't like about 
Trango (darn DSS dish antennas).


My goal is to gain the High Arpu business.  Who the winner will be is 
not a dying breed product, but the manufacturer that steps up to the 
plate to deliver a complete product.
I want to be done with half-assed antennas.   What I've learned is 
that the ANTENNA IS JUST AS IMPORTANT AS THE RADIO.


Trango's strength had always been their internal antennas and options 
for good external ones.


On a side note, Does Canopy 5.8G CPEs have external connectors?

The truth is, I want the cheap CPE antenna option, for half my 
installs, cause it saves me money and thats all I need to do the job. 
I just don't want to give up the flexibilty to optimize reliabitly for 
the other 50%.


The other thing you forget is, I'd now rather fight it out, and stay 
put on the channel, doesn't mean that I will win.  With Trango, I 
still have the option to change my mind, when somebody beats me up, 
and I need to go run to another channel or polarity. Its always good 
to have a backup plan.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 11:24 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links


snip
What I'm learning is that as my business grows, the abilty to change and
move (channel options) is becoming less important that the abilty to
effectively battle it out. The reason is that if every time I hiot 
noise, I

move away from the channel, eventually others take those channels., until
they are all gone, and their is no where else to move to. Sometimes its
better to claim the space and say, I'm here first, go find another
channel to play on.  And keep fighting back with better antennas. As the
antenna grows, you over power the interference, but the important 
point is,
you reduce the interference to you and them, by restricting the 
beamwidth.

The high power via antenna you go, the more courtious it is to the other
player to attempt avoidence of signals interfering.  Alvarion gives that
advantage.
/snip

Tom,

Based on that observation...shouldn't you be looking at Canopy ducking

-Charles

---
WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
Coming to a City Near You
http://www.winog.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] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links

2006-09-22 Thread Jon Langeler

Charles Wu wrote:


snip
What I'm learning is that as my business grows, the abilty to change and 
move (channel options) is becoming less important that the abilty to 
effectively battle it out. The reason is that if every time I hiot noise, I 
move away from the channel, eventually others take those channels., until 
they are all gone, and their is no where else to move to. Sometimes its 
better to claim the space and say, I'm here first, go find another 
channel to play on.  And keep fighting back with better antennas. As the 
antenna grows, you over power the interference, but the important point is, 
you reduce the interference to you and them, by restricting the beamwidth. 
The high power via antenna you go, the more courtious it is to the other 
player to attempt avoidence of signals interfering.  Alvarion gives that 
advantage.

/snip

Tom,

Based on that observation...shouldn't you be looking at Canopy ducking

-Charles
 

That would damage his anti-motorola pride! Plus going with canopy would 
mean being 'in sync' with the competition and things would start 
working...just wouldn't be right! double ducking


--
Jon Langeler
Michwave Tech.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links

2006-09-22 Thread Jon Langeler

Since canopy is the most robust(3db C/I, ARQ, etc.) PTMP product in it's 
class(and happens to be #1 deployed in US), anyone not using canopy will likely 
find themselves conforming to the canopy operators' spectrum usage. As for 
coordination among the canopy operators, that's an easy problem to solve...

--
Jon Langeler
Michwave Tech.



Tom DeReggi wrote:

For the golden answer. GPS only helps you design your own network, and 
I already take care to use best practices for my own network, when its 
comming from myself.
Its all the other people that you have to worry about.   Do you think 
Public safety or department of transportation is using GPS sync for 
all their street pole omnis? Do you think all  the corporate end user 
PTP links being sold to them by clueless network integrators are GPS 
syncing? NOT!


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links


Would GPS'd Canopy help?  If not, why?  Do others in the area use 
Canopy?


Brian

Tom DeReggi wrote:

Because, over the years I lost 100% of my high ARPU subs that used 
5830-ext in these areas. Yes that REALLY hurt the financials of my 
business.  The reason, is that its a high noise environment where 
we're attempting to deploy, and its impossible to offer zero packet 
loss solutions with TDD unless ARQ is available, in these 
situations.  It makes it worse with all the WiFi gear going up, 
because you don;t know its there half the time, until its starts 
transmiting. (darn I hate contention based). Yes, of course, Beta 
ARQ firmware exists for the 5830-ext, but it can't be used 
reliably.  One of the big mistakes I made is I tried to use it, and 
learned that it locks up the SU radios every couple of days, when 
under heavy load. I did my testing of it on about 10 links. I 
started on 4 low use links, and it appeared to be stable, with only 
a random lockup every couple of weeks that I thought was something 
else. But after I installed it on the high volume links (other 6), 
they started locking up like crazy. (yes used most recent supposedly 
fixed firmware). Auto-Reboot devices causing two minutes of downtime 
for a reboot, is not adequate for High ARPU large office T1s and 
VOIP services. I'd rather not have the business, than to get my 
reputation tarnished by installing links the subscriber ends up 
cancelling and complaining about. Evey T1 that gets cancelled means 
there is a MTU property owner involved that got the word (they make 
the referals) and a trusted advisor Computer guy (agents that give 
stamp of approval) that gets scared off, when they learn about the 
failure. Deals with partners that took months to build get thrown 
away over night, with a couple reboots from buggy ARQ firmware.


What you can't forget is that in PtMP, you can't encrease the 
antenna side of the AP. Not everything can be solved with the big 
antenna on SU side. Without ARQ one is toast.


Trango gave me so much hope when they developed ARQ for the 5800 
Foxes, which works fantastically. I'd select the Fox over a 5830-ext 
any day because of ARQ. But thats not good enough, I need ARQ and 
EXT connectors. Last year,  I made Trango aware that we needed ARQ 
on 5830-EXT and Link-10s more than anything, and a year later, we 
still don't have it, and its not on their priority list.  That is 
frustrating for my business. Customers don't wait in Urban Tier1 
markets.  When the Link doesn't go up in a few days, or their were a 
couple of noise issues that scare them, they have already placed 
their order with someone else.


What it has forced me to do, is slowly start swapping out my Trango 
APs, to make room (spectrum and antenna lease fees) for radios that 
can deliver packetlossless links.  Even Wifi gear can offer 
packetlossless links.  And its forced me to go back and re-negotiate 
my contracts with property owners to try and not pay per antenna, so 
I can get more antennas of larger size (PtP) for less money on the 
roofs.  Its a BIG waste of time, that I wouldn't have to do, if 
Trango added ARQ reliable ARQ to 5830-ext.


I'm still a Big Trango fan, and still am basing my business around 
its product, because of its value proposition, but I am loosing 
sales and getting more black eyes than I have to, because Trango 
does not have a EXT antenna product line that delivers reliable 
ARQ.  I haven't bought a new Trango 5830 AP in ages, I have to many 
pulls on the shelf waiting, when I need one.  If Trango never 
released ARQ for the FOX, I would have never kown what I was 
missing. But now that I have experienced it, I can't live without it.


The two biggest reasons, for lack of progress in my company is, 1) 
Waiting for technology, and 2) Waiting for finance to come through.  
I can't count how much money I 

RE: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links

2006-09-22 Thread Brad Belton
This maybe so, but there will ALWAYS be another product available and
deployed alongside Canopy that does not sync.  It is also safe to assume
that not every Canopy operator will opt to sync knowingly or unknowingly.

Best,

Brad


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jon Langeler
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 3:10 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links

Since canopy is the most robust(3db C/I, ARQ, etc.) PTMP product in it's
class(and happens to be #1 deployed in US), anyone not using canopy will
likely find themselves conforming to the canopy operators' spectrum usage.
As for coordination among the canopy operators, that's an easy problem to
solve...

-- 
Jon Langeler
Michwave Tech.



Tom DeReggi wrote:

 For the golden answer. GPS only helps you design your own network, and 
 I already take care to use best practices for my own network, when its 
 comming from myself.
 Its all the other people that you have to worry about.   Do you think 
 Public safety or department of transportation is using GPS sync for 
 all their street pole omnis? Do you think all  the corporate end user 
 PTP links being sold to them by clueless network integrators are GPS 
 syncing? NOT!

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


 - Original Message - From: Brian Rohrbacher 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 9:03 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links


 Would GPS'd Canopy help?  If not, why?  Do others in the area use 
 Canopy?

 Brian

 Tom DeReggi wrote:

 Because, over the years I lost 100% of my high ARPU subs that used 
 5830-ext in these areas. Yes that REALLY hurt the financials of my 
 business.  The reason, is that its a high noise environment where 
 we're attempting to deploy, and its impossible to offer zero packet 
 loss solutions with TDD unless ARQ is available, in these 
 situations.  It makes it worse with all the WiFi gear going up, 
 because you don;t know its there half the time, until its starts 
 transmiting. (darn I hate contention based). Yes, of course, Beta 
 ARQ firmware exists for the 5830-ext, but it can't be used 
 reliably.  One of the big mistakes I made is I tried to use it, and 
 learned that it locks up the SU radios every couple of days, when 
 under heavy load. I did my testing of it on about 10 links. I 
 started on 4 low use links, and it appeared to be stable, with only 
 a random lockup every couple of weeks that I thought was something 
 else. But after I installed it on the high volume links (other 6), 
 they started locking up like crazy. (yes used most recent supposedly 
 fixed firmware). Auto-Reboot devices causing two minutes of downtime 
 for a reboot, is not adequate for High ARPU large office T1s and 
 VOIP services. I'd rather not have the business, than to get my 
 reputation tarnished by installing links the subscriber ends up 
 cancelling and complaining about. Evey T1 that gets cancelled means 
 there is a MTU property owner involved that got the word (they make 
 the referals) and a trusted advisor Computer guy (agents that give 
 stamp of approval) that gets scared off, when they learn about the 
 failure. Deals with partners that took months to build get thrown 
 away over night, with a couple reboots from buggy ARQ firmware.

 What you can't forget is that in PtMP, you can't encrease the 
 antenna side of the AP. Not everything can be solved with the big 
 antenna on SU side. Without ARQ one is toast.

 Trango gave me so much hope when they developed ARQ for the 5800 
 Foxes, which works fantastically. I'd select the Fox over a 5830-ext 
 any day because of ARQ. But thats not good enough, I need ARQ and 
 EXT connectors. Last year,  I made Trango aware that we needed ARQ 
 on 5830-EXT and Link-10s more than anything, and a year later, we 
 still don't have it, and its not on their priority list.  That is 
 frustrating for my business. Customers don't wait in Urban Tier1 
 markets.  When the Link doesn't go up in a few days, or their were a 
 couple of noise issues that scare them, they have already placed 
 their order with someone else.

 What it has forced me to do, is slowly start swapping out my Trango 
 APs, to make room (spectrum and antenna lease fees) for radios that 
 can deliver packetlossless links.  Even Wifi gear can offer 
 packetlossless links.  And its forced me to go back and re-negotiate 
 my contracts with property owners to try and not pay per antenna, so 
 I can get more antennas of larger size (PtP) for less money on the 
 roofs.  Its a BIG waste of time, that I wouldn't have to do, if 
 Trango added ARQ reliable ARQ to 5830-ext.

 I'm still a Big Trango fan, and still am basing my business around 
 its product, because of its value proposition, but I am loosing 
 sales and getting more black eyes than 

RE: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links

2006-09-22 Thread Brad Larson
Jon, Canopy is not fast enough for many now and voip performance is lacking.
Depending on the circumstance you may be right for many but the times are
changing very quickly. There are more and more projects hitting the streets
where you don't even make the cut if you can't pass the higher data traffic
or support more than 25 voip calls per sector. Brad

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 4:10 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links

Since canopy is the most robust(3db C/I, ARQ, etc.) PTMP product in it's
class(and happens to be #1 deployed in US), anyone not using canopy will
likely find themselves conforming to the canopy operators' spectrum usage.
As for coordination among the canopy operators, that's an easy problem to
solve...

-- 
Jon Langeler
Michwave Tech.



Tom DeReggi wrote:

 For the golden answer. GPS only helps you design your own network, and 
 I already take care to use best practices for my own network, when its 
 comming from myself.
 Its all the other people that you have to worry about.   Do you think 
 Public safety or department of transportation is using GPS sync for 
 all their street pole omnis? Do you think all  the corporate end user 
 PTP links being sold to them by clueless network integrators are GPS 
 syncing? NOT!

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


 - Original Message - From: Brian Rohrbacher 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 9:03 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links


 Would GPS'd Canopy help?  If not, why?  Do others in the area use 
 Canopy?

 Brian

 Tom DeReggi wrote:

 Because, over the years I lost 100% of my high ARPU subs that used 
 5830-ext in these areas. Yes that REALLY hurt the financials of my 
 business.  The reason, is that its a high noise environment where 
 we're attempting to deploy, and its impossible to offer zero packet 
 loss solutions with TDD unless ARQ is available, in these 
 situations.  It makes it worse with all the WiFi gear going up, 
 because you don;t know its there half the time, until its starts 
 transmiting. (darn I hate contention based). Yes, of course, Beta 
 ARQ firmware exists for the 5830-ext, but it can't be used 
 reliably.  One of the big mistakes I made is I tried to use it, and 
 learned that it locks up the SU radios every couple of days, when 
 under heavy load. I did my testing of it on about 10 links. I 
 started on 4 low use links, and it appeared to be stable, with only 
 a random lockup every couple of weeks that I thought was something 
 else. But after I installed it on the high volume links (other 6), 
 they started locking up like crazy. (yes used most recent supposedly 
 fixed firmware). Auto-Reboot devices causing two minutes of downtime 
 for a reboot, is not adequate for High ARPU large office T1s and 
 VOIP services. I'd rather not have the business, than to get my 
 reputation tarnished by installing links the subscriber ends up 
 cancelling and complaining about. Evey T1 that gets cancelled means 
 there is a MTU property owner involved that got the word (they make 
 the referals) and a trusted advisor Computer guy (agents that give 
 stamp of approval) that gets scared off, when they learn about the 
 failure. Deals with partners that took months to build get thrown 
 away over night, with a couple reboots from buggy ARQ firmware.

 What you can't forget is that in PtMP, you can't encrease the 
 antenna side of the AP. Not everything can be solved with the big 
 antenna on SU side. Without ARQ one is toast.

 Trango gave me so much hope when they developed ARQ for the 5800 
 Foxes, which works fantastically. I'd select the Fox over a 5830-ext 
 any day because of ARQ. But thats not good enough, I need ARQ and 
 EXT connectors. Last year,  I made Trango aware that we needed ARQ 
 on 5830-EXT and Link-10s more than anything, and a year later, we 
 still don't have it, and its not on their priority list.  That is 
 frustrating for my business. Customers don't wait in Urban Tier1 
 markets.  When the Link doesn't go up in a few days, or their were a 
 couple of noise issues that scare them, they have already placed 
 their order with someone else.

 What it has forced me to do, is slowly start swapping out my Trango 
 APs, to make room (spectrum and antenna lease fees) for radios that 
 can deliver packetlossless links.  Even Wifi gear can offer 
 packetlossless links.  And its forced me to go back and re-negotiate 
 my contracts with property owners to try and not pay per antenna, so 
 I can get more antennas of larger size (PtP) for less money on the 
 roofs.  Its a BIG waste of time, that I wouldn't have to do, if 
 Trango added ARQ reliable ARQ to 5830-ext.

 I'm still a Big Trango fan, and still am basing my business around 
 its 

Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links

2006-09-22 Thread Matt Liotta
I am not suggesting that Canopy shouldn't be better, but it is certainly 
better than good enough. Again, not only are we leading the industry in 
ARPU, we also doing hundreds of thousands of VoIP minutes every month.


-Matt

Brad Larson wrote:

Jon, Canopy is not fast enough for many now and voip performance is lacking.
Depending on the circumstance you may be right for many but the times are
changing very quickly. There are more and more projects hitting the streets
where you don't even make the cut if you can't pass the higher data traffic
or support more than 25 voip calls per sector. Brad

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 4:10 PM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links

Since canopy is the most robust(3db C/I, ARQ, etc.) PTMP product in it's
class(and happens to be #1 deployed in US), anyone not using canopy will
likely find themselves conforming to the canopy operators' spectrum usage.
As for coordination among the canopy operators, that's an easy problem to
solve...

  


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links

2006-09-22 Thread Patrick Leary
You pay more per customer than an Alvarion user Matt since all your
customers are on dedicated PtP shots though, right?

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

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 12:19 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links

I believe we have one of the highest APRUs in the business and we use 
Canopy (including Orthogon). We do like the Trango Atlas, but only for 
limited deployment.

I don't really think the price of the radio correlates to the revenue of

the service.

-Matt

Tom DeReggi wrote:
 As much as I've protested Canopy, (in my mind poor design), the 
 smaller the gaps are getting.
 The problem is that Trango kept degrading their gear more and more 
 like Canopy. And Canopy kept improving their gear.
 Trango still wins, because Trango is less expensive.
 Canopy still has some of the traits that I also don't like about 
 Trango (darn DSS dish antennas).

 My goal is to gain the High Arpu business.  Who the winner will be is 
 not a dying breed product, but the manufacturer that steps up to the 
 plate to deliver a complete product.
 I want to be done with half-assed antennas.   What I've learned is 
 that the ANTENNA IS JUST AS IMPORTANT AS THE RADIO.

 Trango's strength had always been their internal antennas and options 
 for good external ones.

 On a side note, Does Canopy 5.8G CPEs have external connectors?

 The truth is, I want the cheap CPE antenna option, for half my 
 installs, cause it saves me money and thats all I need to do the job. 
 I just don't want to give up the flexibilty to optimize reliabitly for

 the other 50%.

 The other thing you forget is, I'd now rather fight it out, and stay 
 put on the channel, doesn't mean that I will win.  With Trango, I 
 still have the option to change my mind, when somebody beats me up, 
 and I need to go run to another channel or polarity. Its always good 
 to have a backup plan.

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


 - Original Message - From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 11:24 PM
 Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links


 snip
 What I'm learning is that as my business grows, the abilty to change
and
 move (channel options) is becoming less important that the abilty to
 effectively battle it out. The reason is that if every time I hiot 
 noise, I
 move away from the channel, eventually others take those channels.,
until
 they are all gone, and their is no where else to move to. Sometimes
its
 better to claim the space and say, I'm here first, go find another
 channel to play on.  And keep fighting back with better antennas. As
the
 antenna grows, you over power the interference, but the important 
 point is,
 you reduce the interference to you and them, by restricting the 
 beamwidth.
 The high power via antenna you go, the more courtious it is to the
other
 player to attempt avoidence of signals interfering.  Alvarion gives
that
 advantage.
 /snip

 Tom,

 Based on that observation...shouldn't you be looking at Canopy
ducking

 -Charles

 ---
 WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
 Coming to a City Near You
 http://www.winog.com


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals 
computer viruses(192).








 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals 
computer viruses(42).











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] PTP Link Recommendations - The Future of WISPs

2006-09-22 Thread Butch Evans

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006, Tom DeReggi wrote:

I'm jsut saying readers may misinterperete the post if my 
statements were not added.


The parts that you added, though, were specifically related to the 
radio portion of the network (and you were correct there), but it 
has nothing to do with what we did (now 3 times) with OSPF.  It was 
that part that I responded to.


If the intend is to do FDX, Using OFDM to accomplish it is one easy 
way to do it.


OFDM isn't full duplex, unless I'm sorely mistaken.

The question that I was challenging is in what cases FDX is 
appropriate. It can be risky to rely on two channels in a noisy 
environment.  What happens if those channels develop interference? 
What channels would you move to? Anyone can get a good link on day 
one, but what is the plan for preventing future disasters?


This is actually a better question.  The fact is, that MOST people 
who brag on their 10, 20, 50Mbps infrastructure don't need 
anywhere near that.  In 2 of the cases where I built this type of 
setup, there was a real need that a FDX implementation solved. 
These were not ISPs, but a corporate install where they were doing 
VoIP among other things.  The third one was an ISP and they had 2 
links up and running (one in 5.8 and another in 2.4) and wanted to 
find a way to utilize these better (they were previously just 
bridged and STP was running).


Two 10Mhz channels has less risk and more options than one 20 Mhz 
channel.


This is obviously true and very spectrum conscious.

Its humbling for me to admit that publically, but I'm a smarter 
person for realizing it.


:-)  I have a hard time admitting that I _could_ have _possibly_ 
been wrong.  ;-)  (I guess that's just human nature.)


I tend to agree (a little) with the vision that you posted, but 
that's also a bit off the topic at hand.  I guess you get the right 
to stray from the topic, being the long-timer that you are.  :-)


--
Butch Evans
Network Engineering and Security Consulting
573-276-2879
http://www.butchevans.com/
Mikrotik Certified Consultant
(http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html)
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Outsourced installations

2006-09-22 Thread Matt Larsen - Lists

Hi Mario,

To answer your questions:

1)  Tranzeo radios, all POE, all models
2)  Terrain is mostly flat, some rolling hills, mostly rural
3)  Grounding is required in the contract
4)  We provide the mounting hardware.  Normally, we send satellite arms 
with the installer, but if it takes more we provide a tripod or 
non-pen.  Their price doesn't change.
5)  We do a cat-5 run through an outside wall.  If they need more 
wiring, it is $35/hour.


I would be happy to share my intaller's agreement.  Just hit me off list.

Matt Larsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Mario Pommier wrote:

Matt, Pete,
   Can you state what kinds of radios these installs involve? are 
these PoE radios, what brand, what kind of terrain you're installing 
in, rural/metro area?  Is grounding being done?  What if they install 
a non-pen mount?  Same price?  Where does install end: i.e. do they 
ahve to do an indoor run to where the network equipment is?

   It would help to gauge what's involved.
   Thanks.
   BTW, we haven't gone to outsourcing, not yet anyway.

Mario

Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:

I started out with having my own installers, vans, equipment etc., 
but have switched over to outsourcing almost all of our installations.


At this time last year, I had two different outsourced installers 
going at the same time. We did 80 installs last September and our 
cost was a little bit more than what we were paying our own 
installers. The real difference came when we had a slow month (30-40 
installs) and we only had to pay for the installs that were 
completed. One of the installers we worked with left to get a higher 
paying job, and it worked out well for all of us. Except for the fact 
that we have had to go out and redo about 25 of his installs because 
he was mounting too low in the houses or putting radios behind trees 
in the winter. That kind of sucked. The other installers has a little 
bit of a language barrier, being from Peru - and was kind of sloppy 
with his installs at first. Over the long run, he has turned out to 
be great, as he has stepped up and done everything we have asked him 
to do and improved the quality of his work considerably along the 
way. I now give him everything that I can, including service calls.


It has been a much better situation to be able to outsource to a good 
contractor. Our successful install rate is much higher and we have 
been able to focus on running and growing our network instead of 
stupid stuff. I am paying $90 to $120 per install (depending on 
mileage, some places are 300 miles round trip), $35 per service call 
and $35 for de-installs. That is working very well for me.


Matt Larsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Pete Davis wrote:

We outsource most of our installs to our employees. The two techs 
usually go out together, and split the $100. Its not unheard of for 
my techs to make more money on a busy week than I take in my salary, 
and I am an owner.


They make $x/hr to do service calls, uninstalls, AP maintenance, etc 
and if they can keep those caught up, we schedule an install 
(usually 1 or 2 /day for 2 techs). They are OFF the clock for 
installs, and get $100/install. We provide the van, the tools, the 
gas, the CPE, and all consumables (staples, caulk, cat5, ends, 
jacks, faceplates, etc). That keeps them from usually turning in 
overtime. It gives them an incentive for completing installs in a 
timely manner (2 hr install = $25/hr/tech). Any service calls 
resulting from a faulty/sloppy install in the first 30 days result 
in the installer techs going on site to fix it on THEIR time, so 
they have an incentive to get it done right the first time around.



We have a few other local IT/phone/security system consultants who 
will occasionally bring us a customer and offer to install them, 
since they are an existing consulting customer for them anyway and 
usually selling them a custom network/phone system/security 
system/audio system anyway. We will usually give them $125 or $150 
and provide the CPE and minimal technical support. They will bring 
us the contract/customer worksheet for our files, and we don't even 
have to go on site. Since we usually charge $149 for the setup, we 
often let the consultant charge whatever he wants, and keep it, and 
put in as many custom cable runs and terminations as they can sell. 
We just start picking up the monthly billing.


Those are good relationships to have.

Pete Davis
NoDial.net



chris cooper wrote:



Im sure this has been covered before…..

Have any of you outsourced installations? If so, has it been a 
positive experience, how much do you pay a contractor?


Thanks

Chris

 
No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.7/454 - Release Date: 
9/21/2006
  











--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links

2006-09-22 Thread Matt Liotta

Patrick Leary wrote:

You pay more per customer than an Alvarion user Matt since all your
customers are on dedicated PtP shots though, right?

  
Last time I looked at Alvarion's pricing that wasn't the case. We do use 
a lot PtP shots, but all of our customers aren't on dedicated PtP shots. 
We don't have any customers on over-subscribed radios though.


-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] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links

2006-09-22 Thread Patrick Leary
For sure we are a premium product, so we will never be near the lowest
and don't ever want to be in that game. We try to offer value. That
said, frankly, I personally am not a fan of how we list our pricing.
MSRP is very misleading since each company may have a different channel
model, or lack of one entirely. In other words, our pricing appears much
higher than that which people actually pay, even people buying in
quantities of one much less those buying in volume.

In terms of oversubscription, having it or not is neither good or bad
and there is nothing to tilt your nose to about oversubscription in and
of itself. You offer a dedicated circuit and your clients pay
accordingly much more and should. I assume they chose you because they
want that dedicated circuit and believe you offer it at a value. Others
chose to sell oversubscribed service, which is perfectly acceptable and
does result in a lower ARPU than a dedicated circuit.

That said, sure there are operators that WAY over subscribe. I've some
cable ops doing 1000:1 residential which must be crappy service. We
advise of a residential of 20:1 and a commercial of 4:1, maybe 5:1.

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

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 2:39 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links

Patrick Leary wrote:
 You pay more per customer than an Alvarion user Matt since all your
 customers are on dedicated PtP shots though, right?

   
Last time I looked at Alvarion's pricing that wasn't the case. We do use

a lot PtP shots, but all of our customers aren't on dedicated PtP shots.

We don't have any customers on over-subscribed radios though.

-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(191).








 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals 
computer viruses(42).











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] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links

2006-09-22 Thread Tom DeReggi

Patrick,

I couldn't agree more, well said.

PS. The problem is finding gear/platform that has a balanced offering for 
both high ARPU and low ARPU business.  Since most WISPs go after both 
markets.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 3:09 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links


My goal is to gain the High Arpu business.

Tom, that is exactly where Alvarion excels and why it is my opinion that
the more premium an operator becomes in the total quality of their
service, the more likely an operator is to choose Alvarion. And these
customers have different service level expectations that go far beyond
the speed. They require a reliable connection that they can essentially
forget about. Any connection that draws the attention of the end
customer is a bad connection, because something is happening that forces
them to deal with it. That is a distraction. That leads to a sense of
insecurity, which is something a high ARPU customer will not tolerate
over time.

So Alvarion radios are built and given feature sets that allow an
extreme level of customization (lots of depth in the VLAN abilities for
example) and reliability (both physical and in terms of link stability).
As well, as an operator you are able to pull a huge variety of
statistics to reduce trouble shooting time when you do have to trouble
shoot.

And on the basic level, the way our radios use the air means we scan
scale high ARPU customers better per sector than any other UL brand.
That is especially true is you are offering more than just high speed
Internet access such as VLANs and services like VoIP.

It is plenty true that there have been numerous small WISPs that have
left Alvarion (something I am going to work hard to change), but I have
never met a SCALED operator that switch FROM Alvarion. I have met
countless though that have moved to us as they have reached the stage
where they need to become higher end providers. You are a prototypical
example of such a WISP. John's is such a case. Marty's Roadstar is one
of the most classic examples, having moved from 802.11b to Trango to
Alvarion.

Now for sure we are not perfect and we have our share of quirks, but we
are out there still investing heavily (millions) in this unlicensed
market, including on the product front. And we are fiscally very healthy
and always have been. We are a horse a long term operator can tie his
cart to. And I cannot understate how important that is. Many companies
and all the huge telecom equipment providers (including Moto) are not
investing in fixed now hardly at all, much less unlicensed fixed.

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







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/


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.8/455 - Release Date: 9/22/2006


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links

2006-09-22 Thread Tom DeReggi
Nice try, but I've found that comment to be not at all true. I have often 
chosen to avoid canopy user's channels, but because I am a good WISP 
neighbor, not because I had to.  Why fight if you can cooperate.  On a SPEC 
sheet Canopy does boast the lowest C/I.  But Trango's specified C/I was 
reported before considering ARQ. And Trango has always underspec'd their 
spec sheets.  C/I is not nearly as relevant as SNR resilience anyway. With 
Arq, we've easilly ran links as low as 4 db above the average noise floor, 
reliably.  There is VERY little difference between the Trango and Canopy C/I 
in real world usage.  The Trango just adds more polarities as more options 
to work around it, when needed.  One of the reasons we like Trango is its 
resilience to noise, that gives us the abilty to fight it out and stand our 
ground.  The Foxes w/ DISH, have excellent ARQ and resilience to Noise, 
within their range and LOS.


When we start to have trouble with Trango, is when we start to push the 
limits of the technology.  Its a LOS technology that we attempt NLOS with. 
My arguement is also not that we can't be the last man standing. Its that 
when the battle happens the customer sees it, and the customer does not 
tolerate it.  IF a Canopy and Trango went to war, one might survive a little 
better than the other, but ultimately both customers would feel the 
interference the majority of the time.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Jon Langeler [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links


Since canopy is the most robust(3db C/I, ARQ, etc.) PTMP product in it's 
class(and happens to be #1 deployed in US), anyone not using canopy will 
likely find themselves conforming to the canopy operators' spectrum usage. 
As for coordination among the canopy operators, that's an easy problem to 
solve...


--
Jon Langeler
Michwave Tech.



Tom DeReggi wrote:

For the golden answer. GPS only helps you design your own network, and I 
already take care to use best practices for my own network, when its 
comming from myself.
Its all the other people that you have to worry about.   Do you think 
Public safety or department of transportation is using GPS sync for all 
their street pole omnis? Do you think all  the corporate end user PTP 
links being sold to them by clueless network integrators are GPS syncing? 
NOT!


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links


Would GPS'd Canopy help?  If not, why?  Do others in the area use 
Canopy?


Brian

Tom DeReggi wrote:

Because, over the years I lost 100% of my high ARPU subs that used 
5830-ext in these areas. Yes that REALLY hurt the financials of my 
business.  The reason, is that its a high noise environment where we're 
attempting to deploy, and its impossible to offer zero packet loss 
solutions with TDD unless ARQ is available, in these situations.  It 
makes it worse with all the WiFi gear going up, because you don;t know 
its there half the time, until its starts transmiting. (darn I hate 
contention based). Yes, of course, Beta ARQ firmware exists for the 
5830-ext, but it can't be used reliably.  One of the big mistakes I 
made is I tried to use it, and learned that it locks up the SU radios 
every couple of days, when under heavy load. I did my testing of it on 
about 10 links. I started on 4 low use links, and it appeared to be 
stable, with only a random lockup every couple of weeks that I thought 
was something else. But after I installed it on the high volume links 
(other 6), they started locking up like crazy. (yes used most recent 
supposedly fixed firmware). Auto-Reboot devices causing two minutes of 
downtime for a reboot, is not adequate for High ARPU large office T1s 
and VOIP services. I'd rather not have the business, than to get my 
reputation tarnished by installing links the subscriber ends up 
cancelling and complaining about. Evey T1 that gets cancelled means 
there is a MTU property owner involved that got the word (they make the 
referals) and a trusted advisor Computer guy (agents that give stamp of 
approval) that gets scared off, when they learn about the failure. 
Deals with partners that took months to build get thrown away over 
night, with a couple reboots from buggy ARQ firmware.


What you can't forget is that in PtMP, you can't encrease the antenna 
side of the AP. Not everything can be solved with the big antenna on SU 
side. Without ARQ one is toast.


Trango gave me so much hope when they developed ARQ for the 5800 Foxes, 
which works fantastically. I'd select the Fox over a 5830-ext any day 

[WISPA] Alvarion in your court

2006-09-22 Thread Patrick Leary
Thanks Tom. I am hoping my ideas, once implemented, will contribute to
improving that perception Tom. 

I'm in my eighth year here. I like to pride myself on knowing many of
you pretty well, understanding your needs and such. But that knowledge
has not always translated into actionable benefits for you from
Alvarion. I think I am on to some things now though and have the backing
to make it happen. 

But it's all put up or shut up in the end isn't it? Put it this way,
if I am not able to accomplish what I expect, regardless of the reason,
then it's time for me to move on.

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

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 3:46 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links

Patrick,

I couldn't agree more, well said.

PS. The problem is finding gear/platform that has a balanced offering
for 
both high ARPU and low ARPU business.  Since most WISPs go after both 
markets.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 3:09 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links


My goal is to gain the High Arpu business.

Tom, that is exactly where Alvarion excels and why it is my opinion that
the more premium an operator becomes in the total quality of their
service, the more likely an operator is to choose Alvarion. And these
customers have different service level expectations that go far beyond
the speed. They require a reliable connection that they can essentially
forget about. Any connection that draws the attention of the end
customer is a bad connection, because something is happening that forces
them to deal with it. That is a distraction. That leads to a sense of
insecurity, which is something a high ARPU customer will not tolerate
over time.

So Alvarion radios are built and given feature sets that allow an
extreme level of customization (lots of depth in the VLAN abilities for
example) and reliability (both physical and in terms of link stability).
As well, as an operator you are able to pull a huge variety of
statistics to reduce trouble shooting time when you do have to trouble
shoot.

And on the basic level, the way our radios use the air means we scan
scale high ARPU customers better per sector than any other UL brand.
That is especially true is you are offering more than just high speed
Internet access such as VLANs and services like VoIP.

It is plenty true that there have been numerous small WISPs that have
left Alvarion (something I am going to work hard to change), but I have
never met a SCALED operator that switch FROM Alvarion. I have met
countless though that have moved to us as they have reached the stage
where they need to become higher end providers. You are a prototypical
example of such a WISP. John's is such a case. Marty's Roadstar is one
of the most classic examples, having moved from 802.11b to Trango to
Alvarion.

Now for sure we are not perfect and we have our share of quirks, but we
are out there still investing heavily (millions) in this unlicensed
market, including on the product front. And we are fiscally very healthy
and always have been. We are a horse a long term operator can tie his
cart to. And I cannot understate how important that is. Many companies
and all the huge telecom equipment providers (including Moto) are not
investing in fixed now hardly at all, much less unlicensed fixed.

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








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/


-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.8/455 - Release Date:
9/22/2006


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals 
computer viruses(192).








 
 

RE: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links

2006-09-22 Thread Patrick Leary








Yes, but based on net capacity of a given
sector, not gross.





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











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Mario Pommier
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006
4:17 PM
To: WISPA
 General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL
Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links





Patrick,
 I think I know what you mean, but can you elaborate: do you
mean [4-1Mbps customers] on [1Mbps of radio capacity]?
 Thanks.

Mario

Patrick Leary wrote: 

We advise of a residential of 20:1 and a commercial of 4:1, maybe 5:1.Patrick LearyAVP WISP MarketsAlvarion, Inc.o: 650.314.2628c: 760.580.0080Vonage: 650.641.1243-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] OnBehalf Of Matt LiottaSent: Friday, September 22, 2006 2:39 PMTo: WISPA General ListSubject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul LinksPatrick Leary wrote: 

You pay more per customer than an Alvarion user Matt since all yourcustomers are on dedicated PtP shots though, right? 

Last time I looked at Alvarion's pricing that wasn't the case. We do usea lot PtP shots, but all of our customers aren't on dedicated PtP shots.We don't have any customers on over-subscribed radios though.-Matt 






 
 

This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(191).







 
 

This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(43).






 
 

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] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links

2006-09-22 Thread Tom DeReggi
Matt, Don't forget the laws of statistics.  You also have been in business 
for less than 2 years. We didn't have interference problems our first 4 
years either. It wasn't until year 5 and 6, that it started to become tough. 
I may have complained a little about trango today, but List please don't 
take it out of context.   Every Telecom and their brother, is trying to 
install in our town, they abandon their effort in defeat, and I'm still here 
6 years later.  My market also has Fiber in 80% of the building, there is 
tough competition for the high ARPU business, and its a hard market to 
consistently deliver on.  And its not just the radio, it every aspect of a 
company. We are evolving through the years of experience we have had, and 
when we select which links we install and don't install, we do it with 
responsible choices to protect our reputation as a company that can deliver 
high ARPU quality.  I'd argue that our network is a last man standing 
network in our market today.  A lot of my comments are based on that the 
market will be changing, and manufacturers need to change with the market to 
give us options to better offer quality broadband that can compete with 
Fiber.


I'm not going to point to any specific manufacturer to say its not an 
adeqaute product for the WISP that chose it, I'm just saying that Canopy is 
no exception, none of the gear that is out there today is the perfect 
system, and they are all 5 years old technology.


The company that has most currently risen above the others based on 
technology to meet WISPs current need has been Alvarion with their V4 
product.
Wether its enough value to justify the price, is for the WISP to decide, and 
whether it will stay that way is up for the competing manufacturers to 
decide.


For example the only thing Trango needs to do to be the leader again, is to 
add a integrated 17-23db model fox or an EXT model Fox.  They could easilly 
do that with little sweat.
Or simply fix their ARQ firmware for the 5830 product line and not have to 
make any hardware changes.  Whether they choose todo that, I have no control 
of.
Maybe they are so excited about their next generation Wi-Max gear, they want 
to go straight to that? I don't know.

.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links


I am not suggesting that Canopy shouldn't be better, but it is certainly 
better than good enough. Again, not only are we leading the industry in 
ARPU, we also doing hundreds of thousands of VoIP minutes every month.


-Matt

Brad Larson wrote:
Jon, Canopy is not fast enough for many now and voip performance is 
lacking.

Depending on the circumstance you may be right for many but the times are
changing very quickly. There are more and more projects hitting the 
streets
where you don't even make the cut if you can't pass the higher data 
traffic

or support more than 25 voip calls per sector. Brad

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 4:10 PM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links

Since canopy is the most robust(3db C/I, ARQ, etc.) PTMP product in it's
class(and happens to be #1 deployed in US), anyone not using canopy will
likely find themselves conforming to the canopy operators' spectrum 
usage.

As for coordination among the canopy operators, that's an easy problem to
solve...




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.8/455 - Release Date: 9/22/2006



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] PTP Link Recommendations - The Future of WISPs

2006-09-22 Thread Tom DeReggi


If the intend is to do FDX, Using OFDM to accomplish it is one easy 
way to do it.



OFDM isn't full duplex, unless I'm sorely mistaken.


OOPs typo. MEant OSPF.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Butch Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] PTP Link Recommendations - The Future of WISPs



On Fri, 22 Sep 2006, Tom DeReggi wrote:

I'm jsut saying readers may misinterperete the post if my 
statements were not added.


The parts that you added, though, were specifically related to the 
radio portion of the network (and you were correct there), but it 
has nothing to do with what we did (now 3 times) with OSPF.  It was 
that part that I responded to.


If the intend is to do FDX, Using OFDM to accomplish it is one easy 
way to do it.


OFDM isn't full duplex, unless I'm sorely mistaken.

The question that I was challenging is in what cases FDX is 
appropriate. It can be risky to rely on two channels in a noisy 
environment.  What happens if those channels develop interference? 
What channels would you move to? Anyone can get a good link on day 
one, but what is the plan for preventing future disasters?


This is actually a better question.  The fact is, that MOST people 
who brag on their 10, 20, 50Mbps infrastructure don't need 
anywhere near that.  In 2 of the cases where I built this type of 
setup, there was a real need that a FDX implementation solved. 
These were not ISPs, but a corporate install where they were doing 
VoIP among other things.  The third one was an ISP and they had 2 
links up and running (one in 5.8 and another in 2.4) and wanted to 
find a way to utilize these better (they were previously just 
bridged and STP was running).


Two 10Mhz channels has less risk and more options than one 20 Mhz 
channel.


This is obviously true and very spectrum conscious.

Its humbling for me to admit that publically, but I'm a smarter 
person for realizing it.


:-)  I have a hard time admitting that I _could_ have _possibly_ 
been wrong.  ;-)  (I guess that's just human nature.)


I tend to agree (a little) with the vision that you posted, but 
that's also a bit off the topic at hand.  I guess you get the right 
to stray from the topic, being the long-timer that you are.  :-)


--
Butch Evans
Network Engineering and Security Consulting
573-276-2879
http://www.butchevans.com/
Mikrotik Certified Consultant
(http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html)
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.8/455 - Release Date: 9/22/2006


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links

2006-09-22 Thread Jon Langeler
Tom, I have nothing to gain or lose by telling you what we've not only 
extensivley tested but also experienced over 6 years. We started using 
canopy since it began shipping and at least 100 trango SU between 3 
different towers since beta. I just hate to see fellow wisp protest that 
there isn't a good product and struggle when their actually is a pretty 
darn good one...and on top of that has an upgrade path in it's vision, 
it keeps getting better.


ARQ does not affect C/I like FEC does for example. When you say ARQ is 
fixing any resiliance problems that may be true. But you'll also suffer 
from increased latency and less throughput during those retransmissions. 
Not good if you want to support VOIP and keep customers happy. Having a 
low C/I means the system will be stable more often and maintain a lower 
retrans. Trango's ARQ is not even an option in the 5800 model which is 
what you and I probably have a decent percentage of in our Trango 
networks. Having a low C/I requirement affects other things like 
increases the range of a product. I'm laying out facts, you can convince 
yourself of whatever you want...


Jon Langeler
Michwave Tech.

Tom DeReggi wrote:

Nice try, but I've found that comment to be not at all true. I have 
often chosen to avoid canopy user's channels, but because I am a good 
WISP neighbor, not because I had to.  Why fight if you can cooperate.  
On a SPEC sheet Canopy does boast the lowest C/I.  But Trango's 
specified C/I was reported before considering ARQ. And Trango has 
always underspec'd their spec sheets.  C/I is not nearly as relevant 
as SNR resilience anyway. With Arq, we've easilly ran links as low as 
4 db above the average noise floor, reliably.  There is VERY little 
difference between the Trango and Canopy C/I in real world usage.  The 
Trango just adds more polarities as more options to work around it, 
when needed.  One of the reasons we like Trango is its resilience to 
noise, that gives us the abilty to fight it out and stand our ground.  
The Foxes w/ DISH, have excellent ARQ and resilience to Noise, within 
their range and LOS.


When we start to have trouble with Trango, is when we start to push 
the limits of the technology.  Its a LOS technology that we attempt 
NLOS with. My arguement is also not that we can't be the last man 
standing. Its that when the battle happens the customer sees it, and 
the customer does not tolerate it.  IF a Canopy and Trango went to 
war, one might survive a little better than the other, but ultimately 
both customers would feel the interference the majority of the time.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links

2006-09-22 Thread Jon Langeler
Hey Brad, VOIP may be the only thing canopy is lagging in. I'm curious 
if they'll improve that in the version 8 software release or at least 
when they move toward WIMAX compatibility. In the mean time I'm more 
concerned with providing reliable pipes...


Jon Langeler
Michwave Tech.

Brad Larson wrote:


Jon, Canopy is not fast enough for many now and voip performance is lacking.
Depending on the circumstance you may be right for many but the times are
changing very quickly. There are more and more projects hitting the streets
where you don't even make the cut if you can't pass the higher data traffic
or support more than 25 voip calls per sector. Brad

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 4:10 PM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links

Since canopy is the most robust(3db C/I, ARQ, etc.) PTMP product in it's
class(and happens to be #1 deployed in US), anyone not using canopy will
likely find themselves conforming to the canopy operators' spectrum usage.
As for coordination among the canopy operators, that's an easy problem to
solve...

 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] vendor specs

2006-09-22 Thread Travis Johnson

Hi,

I changed the subject line to reflect more the direction of this 
discussion (Trango vs. Canopy vs. Alvarion)... ;)


This is just off the top of my head, and I would love to see more data 
on any of these radios:


Trango 5830AP - $1,079 retail
Dual polarity
10Mbps (auto up/down ratio)
Easy management (CLI and web)
$149 CPE ($199 up to 10 miles)

Canopy 5.7 AP - $970 (Advantage $1,974)
C/I advantage
Fixed up/down ratio
$490 CPE ($737 advantage)

Alvarion VL AP - $4,500 (rough retail)
36Mbps and 40,000pps
$1,000 CPE

For whatever it's worth, we have over 2,500 CPE in the air and over 
2,000 are Trango (900mhz, 2.4ghz, 5.8ghz). The Trango product has worked 
very well for us, and we are located on some mountaintop repeater 
locations that literally have over 100 antennas (paging, HAM, WISPs, 
etc.) within 100 yards of each other.


Our biggest problem is frequency availability at all (regardless of 
radio choice)... we have a 2.4ghz AP at a repeater station that is 
full. We attempted to install a second sector today and ran a site 
survey at this location across the entire 2.4ghz band, the average 
signals ranged from -25 to -55 at the best. :(


Travis
Microserv

Jon Langeler wrote:

Tom, I have nothing to gain or lose by telling you what we've not only 
extensivley tested but also experienced over 6 years. We started using 
canopy since it began shipping and at least 100 trango SU between 3 
different towers since beta. I just hate to see fellow wisp protest 
that there isn't a good product and struggle when their actually is a 
pretty darn good one...and on top of that has an upgrade path in it's 
vision, it keeps getting better.


ARQ does not affect C/I like FEC does for example. When you say ARQ is 
fixing any resiliance problems that may be true. But you'll also 
suffer from increased latency and less throughput during those 
retransmissions. Not good if you want to support VOIP and keep 
customers happy. Having a low C/I means the system will be stable more 
often and maintain a lower retrans. Trango's ARQ is not even an option 
in the 5800 model which is what you and I probably have a decent 
percentage of in our Trango networks. Having a low C/I requirement 
affects other things like increases the range of a product. I'm laying 
out facts, you can convince yourself of whatever you want...


Jon Langeler
Michwave Tech.

Tom DeReggi wrote:

Nice try, but I've found that comment to be not at all true. I have 
often chosen to avoid canopy user's channels, but because I am a good 
WISP neighbor, not because I had to.  Why fight if you can 
cooperate.  On a SPEC sheet Canopy does boast the lowest C/I.  But 
Trango's specified C/I was reported before considering ARQ. And 
Trango has always underspec'd their spec sheets.  C/I is not nearly 
as relevant as SNR resilience anyway. With Arq, we've easilly ran 
links as low as 4 db above the average noise floor, reliably.  There 
is VERY little difference between the Trango and Canopy C/I in real 
world usage.  The Trango just adds more polarities as more options to 
work around it, when needed.  One of the reasons we like Trango is 
its resilience to noise, that gives us the abilty to fight it out and 
stand our ground.  The Foxes w/ DISH, have excellent ARQ and 
resilience to Noise, within their range and LOS.


When we start to have trouble with Trango, is when we start to push 
the limits of the technology.  Its a LOS technology that we attempt 
NLOS with. My arguement is also not that we can't be the last man 
standing. Its that when the battle happens the customer sees it, and 
the customer does not tolerate it.  IF a Canopy and Trango went to 
war, one might survive a little better than the other, but ultimately 
both customers would feel the interference the majority of the time.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links

2006-09-22 Thread Gino A. Villarini
Connectorized Canopy SM are coming q4

Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 2:31 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links

As much as I've protested Canopy, (in my mind poor design), the smaller the 
gaps are getting.
The problem is that Trango kept degrading their gear more and more like 
Canopy. And Canopy kept improving their gear.
Trango still wins, because Trango is less expensive.
Canopy still has some of the traits that I also don't like about Trango 
(darn DSS dish antennas).

My goal is to gain the High Arpu business.  Who the winner will be is not a 
dying breed product, but the manufacturer that steps up to the plate to 
deliver a complete product.
I want to be done with half-assed antennas.   What I've learned is that the 
ANTENNA IS JUST AS IMPORTANT AS THE RADIO.

Trango's strength had always been their internal antennas and options for 
good external ones.

On a side note, Does Canopy 5.8G CPEs have external connectors?

The truth is, I want the cheap CPE antenna option, for half my installs, 
cause it saves me money and thats all I need to do the job. I just don't 
want to give up the flexibilty to optimize reliabitly for the other 50%.

The other thing you forget is, I'd now rather fight it out, and stay put on 
the channel, doesn't mean that I will win.  With Trango, I still have the 
option to change my mind, when somebody beats me up, and I need to go run to

another channel or polarity. Its always good to have a backup plan.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 11:24 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links


snip
What I'm learning is that as my business grows, the abilty to change and
move (channel options) is becoming less important that the abilty to
effectively battle it out. The reason is that if every time I hiot noise, I
move away from the channel, eventually others take those channels., until
they are all gone, and their is no where else to move to. Sometimes its
better to claim the space and say, I'm here first, go find another
channel to play on.  And keep fighting back with better antennas. As the
antenna grows, you over power the interference, but the important point is,
you reduce the interference to you and them, by restricting the beamwidth.
The high power via antenna you go, the more courtious it is to the other
player to attempt avoidence of signals interfering.  Alvarion gives that
advantage.
/snip

Tom,

Based on that observation...shouldn't you be looking at Canopy ducking

-Charles

---
WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
Coming to a City Near You
http://www.winog.com

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.6/453 - Release Date: 9/20/2006


-- 
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] vendor specs

2006-09-22 Thread Patrick Leary
I have a very interesting new (this month) pdf about this topic that
compares Canopy Advantage and BreezeACCESS VL in a variety of ways, from
a coverage modeling example using high end propagation software to VoIP
stats using company documents from both companies. 

We think it makes a clear case for BreezeACCESS VL, far beyond the
simple front end cost discussions. 

It is 189k in size and would be great fodder for discussion here. If you
want a copy, e-mail me offlist.

Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 7:31 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] vendor specs

Hi,

I changed the subject line to reflect more the direction of this 
discussion (Trango vs. Canopy vs. Alvarion)... ;)

This is just off the top of my head, and I would love to see more data 
on any of these radios:

Trango 5830AP - $1,079 retail
Dual polarity
10Mbps (auto up/down ratio)
Easy management (CLI and web)
$149 CPE ($199 up to 10 miles)

Canopy 5.7 AP - $970 (Advantage $1,974)
C/I advantage
Fixed up/down ratio
$490 CPE ($737 advantage)

Alvarion VL AP - $4,500 (rough retail)
36Mbps and 40,000pps
$1,000 CPE

For whatever it's worth, we have over 2,500 CPE in the air and over 
2,000 are Trango (900mhz, 2.4ghz, 5.8ghz). The Trango product has worked

very well for us, and we are located on some mountaintop repeater 
locations that literally have over 100 antennas (paging, HAM, WISPs, 
etc.) within 100 yards of each other.

Our biggest problem is frequency availability at all (regardless of 
radio choice)... we have a 2.4ghz AP at a repeater station that is 
full. We attempted to install a second sector today and ran a site 
survey at this location across the entire 2.4ghz band, the average

signals ranged from -25 to -55 at the best. :(

Travis
Microserv

Jon Langeler wrote:

 Tom, I have nothing to gain or lose by telling you what we've not only

 extensivley tested but also experienced over 6 years. We started using

 canopy since it began shipping and at least 100 trango SU between 3 
 different towers since beta. I just hate to see fellow wisp protest 
 that there isn't a good product and struggle when their actually is a 
 pretty darn good one...and on top of that has an upgrade path in it's 
 vision, it keeps getting better.

 ARQ does not affect C/I like FEC does for example. When you say ARQ is

 fixing any resiliance problems that may be true. But you'll also 
 suffer from increased latency and less throughput during those 
 retransmissions. Not good if you want to support VOIP and keep 
 customers happy. Having a low C/I means the system will be stable more

 often and maintain a lower retrans. Trango's ARQ is not even an option

 in the 5800 model which is what you and I probably have a decent 
 percentage of in our Trango networks. Having a low C/I requirement 
 affects other things like increases the range of a product. I'm laying

 out facts, you can convince yourself of whatever you want...

 Jon Langeler
 Michwave Tech.

 Tom DeReggi wrote:

 Nice try, but I've found that comment to be not at all true. I have 
 often chosen to avoid canopy user's channels, but because I am a good

 WISP neighbor, not because I had to.  Why fight if you can 
 cooperate.  On a SPEC sheet Canopy does boast the lowest C/I.  But 
 Trango's specified C/I was reported before considering ARQ. And 
 Trango has always underspec'd their spec sheets.  C/I is not nearly 
 as relevant as SNR resilience anyway. With Arq, we've easilly ran 
 links as low as 4 db above the average noise floor, reliably.  There 
 is VERY little difference between the Trango and Canopy C/I in real 
 world usage.  The Trango just adds more polarities as more options to

 work around it, when needed.  One of the reasons we like Trango is 
 its resilience to noise, that gives us the abilty to fight it out and

 stand our ground.  The Foxes w/ DISH, have excellent ARQ and 
 resilience to Noise, within their range and LOS.

 When we start to have trouble with Trango, is when we start to push 
 the limits of the technology.  Its a LOS technology that we attempt 
 NLOS with. My arguement is also not that we can't be the last man 
 standing. Its that when the battle happens the customer sees it, and 
 the customer does not tolerate it.  IF a Canopy and Trango went to 
 war, one might survive a little better than the other, but ultimately

 both customers would feel the interference the majority of the time.

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



 
 


This footnote confirms that this 

RE: [WISPA] vendor specs

2006-09-22 Thread Gino A. Villarini
Let me comment on this 

#Canopy 5.7 AP - $970 (Advantage $1,974) 

is this MRSP ? you can buy this the AP for $800 +/- , Advantage for $1500

#C/I advantage
#Fixed up/down ratio

Add GPS Sync, Feature rich firmware, NMS Software, Strong support, Good
promos, Only Manufacturer to offer price conscious upgrade program, third
party products (dishes , gps syncs) ect ect ect

#$490 CPE ($737 advantage) .. yikes with CPE you have 3 options :

Canopy Lite (1mbps) $170 +/- 25 packs
Canopy (14 Mbps Burst) $225 +/-
Canopy Advantage (14 Mbps sustained ) $550 ( way over priced IMHO )



Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 10:31 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] vendor specs

Hi,

I changed the subject line to reflect more the direction of this 
discussion (Trango vs. Canopy vs. Alvarion)... ;)

This is just off the top of my head, and I would love to see more data 
on any of these radios:

Trango 5830AP - $1,079 retail
Dual polarity
10Mbps (auto up/down ratio)
Easy management (CLI and web)
$149 CPE ($199 up to 10 miles)

Canopy 5.7 AP - $970 (Advantage $1,974)
C/I advantage
Fixed up/down ratio
$490 CPE ($737 advantage)

Alvarion VL AP - $4,500 (rough retail)
36Mbps and 40,000pps
$1,000 CPE

For whatever it's worth, we have over 2,500 CPE in the air and over 
2,000 are Trango (900mhz, 2.4ghz, 5.8ghz). The Trango product has worked 
very well for us, and we are located on some mountaintop repeater 
locations that literally have over 100 antennas (paging, HAM, WISPs, 
etc.) within 100 yards of each other.

Our biggest problem is frequency availability at all (regardless of 
radio choice)... we have a 2.4ghz AP at a repeater station that is 
full. We attempted to install a second sector today and ran a site 
survey at this location across the entire 2.4ghz band, the average 
signals ranged from -25 to -55 at the best. :(

Travis
Microserv

Jon Langeler wrote:

 Tom, I have nothing to gain or lose by telling you what we've not only 
 extensivley tested but also experienced over 6 years. We started using 
 canopy since it began shipping and at least 100 trango SU between 3 
 different towers since beta. I just hate to see fellow wisp protest 
 that there isn't a good product and struggle when their actually is a 
 pretty darn good one...and on top of that has an upgrade path in it's 
 vision, it keeps getting better.

 ARQ does not affect C/I like FEC does for example. When you say ARQ is 
 fixing any resiliance problems that may be true. But you'll also 
 suffer from increased latency and less throughput during those 
 retransmissions. Not good if you want to support VOIP and keep 
 customers happy. Having a low C/I means the system will be stable more 
 often and maintain a lower retrans. Trango's ARQ is not even an option 
 in the 5800 model which is what you and I probably have a decent 
 percentage of in our Trango networks. Having a low C/I requirement 
 affects other things like increases the range of a product. I'm laying 
 out facts, you can convince yourself of whatever you want...

 Jon Langeler
 Michwave Tech.

 Tom DeReggi wrote:

 Nice try, but I've found that comment to be not at all true. I have 
 often chosen to avoid canopy user's channels, but because I am a good 
 WISP neighbor, not because I had to.  Why fight if you can 
 cooperate.  On a SPEC sheet Canopy does boast the lowest C/I.  But 
 Trango's specified C/I was reported before considering ARQ. And 
 Trango has always underspec'd their spec sheets.  C/I is not nearly 
 as relevant as SNR resilience anyway. With Arq, we've easilly ran 
 links as low as 4 db above the average noise floor, reliably.  There 
 is VERY little difference between the Trango and Canopy C/I in real 
 world usage.  The Trango just adds more polarities as more options to 
 work around it, when needed.  One of the reasons we like Trango is 
 its resilience to noise, that gives us the abilty to fight it out and 
 stand our ground.  The Foxes w/ DISH, have excellent ARQ and 
 resilience to Noise, within their range and LOS.

 When we start to have trouble with Trango, is when we start to push 
 the limits of the technology.  Its a LOS technology that we attempt 
 NLOS with. My arguement is also not that we can't be the last man 
 standing. Its that when the battle happens the customer sees it, and 
 the customer does not tolerate it.  IF a Canopy and Trango went to 
 war, one might survive a little better than the other, but ultimately 
 both customers would feel the interference the majority of the time.

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

-- 

Re: [WISPA] vendor specs

2006-09-22 Thread Anthony Will
Your numbers are a bit off on the canopy and when i looked on the trango 
site it looks more in the range of $400 per unit at 30 pack pricing for 
trango's.  I believe your getting that price but at what qualities? 

I have a couple hundred in the air and I have Midwest Wireless the 5th 
largest WISP in the country playing in my back yard using Alvarions junk 
BA2 system all over the place.  And I also have a local ILEC, 
Stonebridge and the remains of Xtratyme all over the rest of my coverage 
area.  My PtmP system is all 900mhz and 2.4 ghz using omni's and I dont 
have any issues with interference.  The longest customer link I have on 
900mhz is 18.5 miles and the longest 2.4 link is 12 miles.  I use omni's 
so that I dont completely destroy the airwaves for others that are 
playing in the same sand box. 


Canopy pricing:
AP = $898  (Advantage $1554) Single pricing
CPE = $267 (Advantage $402 ) 25pack pricing  Add $40 a unit for 15 mile 
range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified)
CPE = $216 (Advantage $324) 100 pack pricing Add $25 a unit for 15 mile 
range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified)


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.


Travis Johnson wrote:

Hi,

I changed the subject line to reflect more the direction of this 
discussion (Trango vs. Canopy vs. Alvarion)... ;)


This is just off the top of my head, and I would love to see more data 
on any of these radios:


Trango 5830AP - $1,079 retail
Dual polarity
10Mbps (auto up/down ratio)
Easy management (CLI and web)
$149 CPE ($199 up to 10 miles)

Canopy 5.7 AP - $970 (Advantage $1,974)
C/I advantage
Fixed up/down ratio
$490 CPE ($737 advantage)

Alvarion VL AP - $4,500 (rough retail)
36Mbps and 40,000pps
$1,000 CPE

For whatever it's worth, we have over 2,500 CPE in the air and over 
2,000 are Trango (900mhz, 2.4ghz, 5.8ghz). The Trango product has 
worked very well for us, and we are located on some mountaintop 
repeater locations that literally have over 100 antennas (paging, HAM, 
WISPs, etc.) within 100 yards of each other.


Our biggest problem is frequency availability at all (regardless of 
radio choice)... we have a 2.4ghz AP at a repeater station that is 
full. We attempted to install a second sector today and ran a site 
survey at this location across the entire 2.4ghz band, the 
average signals ranged from -25 to -55 at the best. :(


Travis
Microserv

Jon Langeler wrote:

Tom, I have nothing to gain or lose by telling you what we've not 
only extensivley tested but also experienced over 6 years. We started 
using canopy since it began shipping and at least 100 trango SU 
between 3 different towers since beta. I just hate to see fellow wisp 
protest that there isn't a good product and struggle when their 
actually is a pretty darn good one...and on top of that has an 
upgrade path in it's vision, it keeps getting better.


ARQ does not affect C/I like FEC does for example. When you say ARQ 
is fixing any resiliance problems that may be true. But you'll also 
suffer from increased latency and less throughput during those 
retransmissions. Not good if you want to support VOIP and keep 
customers happy. Having a low C/I means the system will be stable 
more often and maintain a lower retrans. Trango's ARQ is not even an 
option in the 5800 model which is what you and I probably have a 
decent percentage of in our Trango networks. Having a low C/I 
requirement affects other things like increases the range of a 
product. I'm laying out facts, you can convince yourself of whatever 
you want...


Jon Langeler
Michwave Tech.

Tom DeReggi wrote:

Nice try, but I've found that comment to be not at all true. I have 
often chosen to avoid canopy user's channels, but because I am a 
good WISP neighbor, not because I had to.  Why fight if you can 
cooperate.  On a SPEC sheet Canopy does boast the lowest C/I.  But 
Trango's specified C/I was reported before considering ARQ. And 
Trango has always underspec'd their spec sheets.  C/I is not nearly 
as relevant as SNR resilience anyway. With Arq, we've easilly ran 
links as low as 4 db above the average noise floor, reliably.  There 
is VERY little difference between the Trango and Canopy C/I in real 
world usage.  The Trango just adds more polarities as more options 
to work around it, when needed.  One of the reasons we like Trango 
is its resilience to noise, that gives us the abilty to fight it out 
and stand our ground.  The Foxes w/ DISH, have excellent ARQ and 
resilience to Noise, within their range and LOS.


When we start to have trouble with Trango, is when we start to push 
the limits of the technology.  Its a LOS technology that we attempt 
NLOS with. My arguement is also not that we can't be the last man 
standing. Its that when the battle happens the customer sees it, and 
the customer does not tolerate it.  IF a Canopy and Trango went to 
war, one might survive a little better than the other, but 
ultimately both customers would feel the interference the majority 
of the time.

Re: [WISPA] Outsourced installations

2006-09-22 Thread John J. Thomas
Yes, and, if for some reason they take too long on a job such that the 
flat-rate billing is less than Minimum wage, you get into hot water

John


-Original Message-
From: Scott Reed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 05:46 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Outsourced installations

-- 
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] vendor specs

2006-09-22 Thread Travis Johnson
I guess I left the door open for comments like feature rich 
firmware what does THAT mean? It definately doesn't mean the SM 
number stays the same on the AP with each reboot or SM re-association.. ;)


GPS sync is extra $$.
NMS software is extra $$.

The pricing I listed was MSRP (or what I could find online with a quick 
search)... and even with your posted prices, the Trango $149 CPE (10Mbps 
sustained, auto up/down speed ratio) is still a better buy. :)


Travis
Microserv

Gino A. Villarini wrote:


Let me comment on this 

#Canopy 5.7 AP - $970 (Advantage $1,974) 


is this MRSP ? you can buy this the AP for $800 +/- , Advantage for $1500

#C/I advantage
#Fixed up/down ratio

Add GPS Sync, Feature rich firmware, NMS Software, Strong support, Good
promos, Only Manufacturer to offer price conscious upgrade program, third
party products (dishes , gps syncs) ect ect ect

#$490 CPE ($737 advantage) .. yikes with CPE you have 3 options :

Canopy Lite (1mbps) $170 +/- 25 packs
Canopy (14 Mbps Burst) $225 +/-
Canopy Advantage (14 Mbps sustained ) $550 ( way over priced IMHO )



Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 10:31 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] vendor specs

Hi,

I changed the subject line to reflect more the direction of this 
discussion (Trango vs. Canopy vs. Alvarion)... ;)


This is just off the top of my head, and I would love to see more data 
on any of these radios:


Trango 5830AP - $1,079 retail
Dual polarity
10Mbps (auto up/down ratio)
Easy management (CLI and web)
$149 CPE ($199 up to 10 miles)

Canopy 5.7 AP - $970 (Advantage $1,974)
C/I advantage
Fixed up/down ratio
$490 CPE ($737 advantage)

Alvarion VL AP - $4,500 (rough retail)
36Mbps and 40,000pps
$1,000 CPE

For whatever it's worth, we have over 2,500 CPE in the air and over 
2,000 are Trango (900mhz, 2.4ghz, 5.8ghz). The Trango product has worked 
very well for us, and we are located on some mountaintop repeater 
locations that literally have over 100 antennas (paging, HAM, WISPs, 
etc.) within 100 yards of each other.


Our biggest problem is frequency availability at all (regardless of 
radio choice)... we have a 2.4ghz AP at a repeater station that is 
full. We attempted to install a second sector today and ran a site 
survey at this location across the entire 2.4ghz band, the average 
signals ranged from -25 to -55 at the best. :(


Travis
Microserv

Jon Langeler wrote:

 

Tom, I have nothing to gain or lose by telling you what we've not only 
extensivley tested but also experienced over 6 years. We started using 
canopy since it began shipping and at least 100 trango SU between 3 
different towers since beta. I just hate to see fellow wisp protest 
that there isn't a good product and struggle when their actually is a 
pretty darn good one...and on top of that has an upgrade path in it's 
vision, it keeps getting better.


ARQ does not affect C/I like FEC does for example. When you say ARQ is 
fixing any resiliance problems that may be true. But you'll also 
suffer from increased latency and less throughput during those 
retransmissions. Not good if you want to support VOIP and keep 
customers happy. Having a low C/I means the system will be stable more 
often and maintain a lower retrans. Trango's ARQ is not even an option 
in the 5800 model which is what you and I probably have a decent 
percentage of in our Trango networks. Having a low C/I requirement 
affects other things like increases the range of a product. I'm laying 
out facts, you can convince yourself of whatever you want...


Jon Langeler
Michwave Tech.

Tom DeReggi wrote:

   

Nice try, but I've found that comment to be not at all true. I have 
often chosen to avoid canopy user's channels, but because I am a good 
WISP neighbor, not because I had to.  Why fight if you can 
cooperate.  On a SPEC sheet Canopy does boast the lowest C/I.  But 
Trango's specified C/I was reported before considering ARQ. And 
Trango has always underspec'd their spec sheets.  C/I is not nearly 
as relevant as SNR resilience anyway. With Arq, we've easilly ran 
links as low as 4 db above the average noise floor, reliably.  There 
is VERY little difference between the Trango and Canopy C/I in real 
world usage.  The Trango just adds more polarities as more options to 
work around it, when needed.  One of the reasons we like Trango is 
its resilience to noise, that gives us the abilty to fight it out and 
stand our ground.  The Foxes w/ DISH, have excellent ARQ and 
resilience to Noise, within their range and LOS.


When we start to have trouble with Trango, is when we start to push 
the limits of the technology.  Its a LOS technology that we attempt 
NLOS with. My arguement is also not that we can't be the last man 
standing. Its that when the battle happens 

[WISPA] RB153

2006-09-22 Thread JNA
Does anyone know if the RB153 will handle 3 SR9 cards both physical form
factor and power consumption?

Thanks,
John Buwa
Michiana 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] vendor specs

2006-09-22 Thread Travis Johnson
Trango offers many different CPE (5830, Fox, Fox Atlas, etc.). They have 
listed on their website the Fox Atlas CPE for $149 for a 30 pack 
pricing. This is a 10Mbps radio and with a $30 dish will reach up to 10 
miles.


I currently have a 22 mile 900mhz link with Trango (using an omni on the 
AP) and a 30.1 mile link with 2.4ghz Trango (also using an omni).


The quantity discount pricing you have listed is very close to Trango's 
pricing on the 900mhz and 2.4ghz units... except Trango already has a 
dual polarity antenna AND an external antenna connector as part of that 
price. How much does the price go up on the Canopy (Cyclone?) to get the 
connector? Are your guys having to haul two different radios for each 
frequency just in case?


Travis
Microserv

Anthony Will wrote:

Your numbers are a bit off on the canopy and when i looked on the 
trango site it looks more in the range of $400 per unit at 30 pack 
pricing for trango's.  I believe your getting that price but at what 
qualities?
I have a couple hundred in the air and I have Midwest Wireless the 5th 
largest WISP in the country playing in my back yard using Alvarions 
junk BA2 system all over the place.  And I also have a local ILEC, 
Stonebridge and the remains of Xtratyme all over the rest of my 
coverage area.  My PtmP system is all 900mhz and 2.4 ghz using omni's 
and I dont have any issues with interference.  The longest customer 
link I have on 900mhz is 18.5 miles and the longest 2.4 link is 12 
miles.  I use omni's so that I dont completely destroy the airwaves 
for others that are playing in the same sand box.

Canopy pricing:
AP = $898  (Advantage $1554) Single pricing
CPE = $267 (Advantage $402 ) 25pack pricing  Add $40 a unit for 15 
mile range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified)
CPE = $216 (Advantage $324) 100 pack pricing Add $25 a unit for 15 
mile range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified)


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.


Travis Johnson wrote:


Hi,

I changed the subject line to reflect more the direction of this 
discussion (Trango vs. Canopy vs. Alvarion)... ;)


This is just off the top of my head, and I would love to see more 
data on any of these radios:


Trango 5830AP - $1,079 retail
Dual polarity
10Mbps (auto up/down ratio)
Easy management (CLI and web)
$149 CPE ($199 up to 10 miles)

Canopy 5.7 AP - $970 (Advantage $1,974)
C/I advantage
Fixed up/down ratio
$490 CPE ($737 advantage)

Alvarion VL AP - $4,500 (rough retail)
36Mbps and 40,000pps
$1,000 CPE

For whatever it's worth, we have over 2,500 CPE in the air and over 
2,000 are Trango (900mhz, 2.4ghz, 5.8ghz). The Trango product has 
worked very well for us, and we are located on some mountaintop 
repeater locations that literally have over 100 antennas (paging, 
HAM, WISPs, etc.) within 100 yards of each other.


Our biggest problem is frequency availability at all (regardless of 
radio choice)... we have a 2.4ghz AP at a repeater station that is 
full. We attempted to install a second sector today and ran a site 
survey at this location across the entire 2.4ghz band, the 
average signals ranged from -25 to -55 at the best. :(


Travis
Microserv

Jon Langeler wrote:

Tom, I have nothing to gain or lose by telling you what we've not 
only extensivley tested but also experienced over 6 years. We 
started using canopy since it began shipping and at least 100 trango 
SU between 3 different towers since beta. I just hate to see fellow 
wisp protest that there isn't a good product and struggle when their 
actually is a pretty darn good one...and on top of that has an 
upgrade path in it's vision, it keeps getting better.


ARQ does not affect C/I like FEC does for example. When you say ARQ 
is fixing any resiliance problems that may be true. But you'll also 
suffer from increased latency and less throughput during those 
retransmissions. Not good if you want to support VOIP and keep 
customers happy. Having a low C/I means the system will be stable 
more often and maintain a lower retrans. Trango's ARQ is not even an 
option in the 5800 model which is what you and I probably have a 
decent percentage of in our Trango networks. Having a low C/I 
requirement affects other things like increases the range of a 
product. I'm laying out facts, you can convince yourself of whatever 
you want...


Jon Langeler
Michwave Tech.

Tom DeReggi wrote:

Nice try, but I've found that comment to be not at all true. I have 
often chosen to avoid canopy user's channels, but because I am a 
good WISP neighbor, not because I had to.  Why fight if you can 
cooperate.  On a SPEC sheet Canopy does boast the lowest C/I.  But 
Trango's specified C/I was reported before considering ARQ. And 
Trango has always underspec'd their spec sheets.  C/I is not nearly 
as relevant as SNR resilience anyway. With Arq, we've easilly ran 
links as low as 4 db above the average noise floor, reliably.  
There is VERY little difference between the Trango and Canopy C/I 
in real world usage.  The 

Re: [WISPA] vendor specs

2006-09-22 Thread Jon Langeler
My problem with VL is that it doesn't offer a scheduled mac...no 
syncronization capability. Now if this get's incorporated down the line 
I would be interested? We've used it all, you name it, and at this point 
if it doesn't have GPS sync I'm hesitant to even touch it. That is one 
advantage that WIMAX will be bringing...


Jon Langeler
Michwave Tech.

Patrick Leary wrote:


I have a very interesting new (this month) pdf about this topic that
compares Canopy Advantage and BreezeACCESS VL in a variety of ways, from
a coverage modeling example using high end propagation software to VoIP
stats using company documents from both companies. 


We think it makes a clear case for BreezeACCESS VL, far beyond the
simple front end cost discussions. 


It is 189k in size and would be great fodder for discussion here. If you
want a copy, e-mail me offlist.

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



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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