Re: [WISPA] Was question: now bandwidth use.

[RickG]

I dream of that! We're still at $100/meg but expecting that to drop soon.
Are you at liberty to say how many subs you have?
-RickG

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 1:01 AM, Jayson Baker  wrote:

> Something like $30/meg for blended Qwest, Level(3), TW Telecom, Cogent.
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:38 PM, RickG  wrote:
>
> > Jayson,
> >
> > Really, I guess it doesnt matter. It's just that your offerings are so
> > remarkable, its hard to believe its true. Most people are on this list to
> > be
> > helpful and to get helped. It would be helpful to know who you are, your
> > business model, and how you do it. My first question would be, how much
> are
> > you paying for bandwidth?
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> > -RickG (KyWiFi)
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Jayson Baker  > >wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think I ever got a response to my question though... what
> *does*
> > it
> > > matter?
> > >
> > > We were the first broadband ISP in our area in 2001.  We were one of
> the
> > > first ISPs to use (5.7) Canopy.  One of the very first to deploy
> 2.4GHz.
> > >  One of the very first to deploy 900MHz.  We saw the writing on the
> wall
> > in
> > > 2005--Canopy was starting to fall behind in speed compared to it's cost
> > per
> > > unit.  We sold the network.  I consulted for 4 years, did software
> > > development, setup a WISP in Costa Rica.  Last year we started offering
> > > service again, and are again growing very quickly.
> > >
> > > Less than 30 seconds on Google and I came up with this: peakinter.net
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Travis Johnson  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Oh boy... here we go...
> > > >
> > > > Just a few weeks ago we tried to track down Jayson on the Motorola
> > > > mailing list (because several people had issues of knowing where his
> > > > expertise and experience was coming from). We have never been able to
> > > > get an idea of how many subs, his real website, company name or any
> > > > other information about him or the companies he works or consults
> for.
> > > > And when asked, all he says is "why does it matter?".
> > > >
> > > > Travis
> > > > Microserv
> > > >
> > > > RickG wrote:
> > > > > Jayson,
> > > > >
> > > > > You dont offer speed packages?
> > > > > I cant find your website at www.spectrasurf.com?
> > > > >
> > > > > -RickG
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Jayson Baker <
> jay...@spectrasurf.com
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> All users get limited at 12Mbps.  Most are capable of 8-10ish.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Robert West <
> > > robert.w...@just-micro.com
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> What's your average speed tier?  Maybe it's more noticeable by
> > those
> > > > who
> > > > >>> offer slower speeds sue to lack of affordable bandwidth?  Just a
> > > guess.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Yes, I know, bandwidth is bandwidth but someone who is married to
> > > their
> > > > >>> network trying to squeeze each kb out of it will be more
> sensitive
> > to
> > > > >>> upward
> > > > >>> swings in the usage as opposed to someone who is more endowed in
> > the
> > > > >>> bandwidth area.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Visuals unintended but it happened and seems to make sense..
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Bob-
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> -Original Message-
> > > > >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:
> > wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
> > > > On
> > > > >>> Behalf Of can...@believewireless.net
> > > > >>> Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 9:11 PM
> > > > >>> To: WISPA General List
> > > > >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Was question: now bandwidth use.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> We really aren't seeing much of a change either.   We are seeing
> a
> > > > >>> small number of users using more bandwidth but nothing crazy.
> > > > >>> However, we have plenty of cheap bandwidth with two redundant
> fiber
> > > > >>> connections and 60GHz/licensed connection to tower.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Our main concern is the limitation of the APs.  Some nights our
> > > Canopy
> > > > >>> APs are maxed out on bandwidth.  However, we use the Mikrotik
> > > > >>> suggested QoS in our routers and we haven't had a single call
> > > > >>> complaining of slow speeds.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> 
> > > > >>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> > > > >>> http://signup.wispa.org/
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> 
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> > > > >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
>

Re: [WISPA] Was question: now bandwidth use.

[Jayson Baker]

Something like $30/meg for blended Qwest, Level(3), TW Telecom, Cogent.

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:38 PM, RickG  wrote:

> Jayson,
>
> Really, I guess it doesnt matter. It's just that your offerings are so
> remarkable, its hard to believe its true. Most people are on this list to
> be
> helpful and to get helped. It would be helpful to know who you are, your
> business model, and how you do it. My first question would be, how much are
> you paying for bandwidth?
>
> Thanks in advance.
> -RickG (KyWiFi)
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Jayson Baker  >wrote:
>
> > I don't think I ever got a response to my question though... what *does*
> it
> > matter?
> >
> > We were the first broadband ISP in our area in 2001.  We were one of the
> > first ISPs to use (5.7) Canopy.  One of the very first to deploy 2.4GHz.
> >  One of the very first to deploy 900MHz.  We saw the writing on the wall
> in
> > 2005--Canopy was starting to fall behind in speed compared to it's cost
> per
> > unit.  We sold the network.  I consulted for 4 years, did software
> > development, setup a WISP in Costa Rica.  Last year we started offering
> > service again, and are again growing very quickly.
> >
> > Less than 30 seconds on Google and I came up with this: peakinter.net
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Travis Johnson  wrote:
> >
> > > Oh boy... here we go...
> > >
> > > Just a few weeks ago we tried to track down Jayson on the Motorola
> > > mailing list (because several people had issues of knowing where his
> > > expertise and experience was coming from). We have never been able to
> > > get an idea of how many subs, his real website, company name or any
> > > other information about him or the companies he works or consults for.
> > > And when asked, all he says is "why does it matter?".
> > >
> > > Travis
> > > Microserv
> > >
> > > RickG wrote:
> > > > Jayson,
> > > >
> > > > You dont offer speed packages?
> > > > I cant find your website at www.spectrasurf.com?
> > > >
> > > > -RickG
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Jayson Baker  >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> All users get limited at 12Mbps.  Most are capable of 8-10ish.
> > > >>
> > > >> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Robert West <
> > robert.w...@just-micro.com
> > > >>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> What's your average speed tier?  Maybe it's more noticeable by
> those
> > > who
> > > >>> offer slower speeds sue to lack of affordable bandwidth?  Just a
> > guess.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Yes, I know, bandwidth is bandwidth but someone who is married to
> > their
> > > >>> network trying to squeeze each kb out of it will be more sensitive
> to
> > > >>> upward
> > > >>> swings in the usage as opposed to someone who is more endowed in
> the
> > > >>> bandwidth area.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Visuals unintended but it happened and seems to make sense..
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Bob-
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> -Original Message-
> > > >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:
> wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
> > > On
> > > >>> Behalf Of can...@believewireless.net
> > > >>> Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 9:11 PM
> > > >>> To: WISPA General List
> > > >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Was question: now bandwidth use.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> We really aren't seeing much of a change either.   We are seeing a
> > > >>> small number of users using more bandwidth but nothing crazy.
> > > >>> However, we have plenty of cheap bandwidth with two redundant fiber
> > > >>> connections and 60GHz/licensed connection to tower.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Our main concern is the limitation of the APs.  Some nights our
> > Canopy
> > > >>> APs are maxed out on bandwidth.  However, we use the Mikrotik
> > > >>> suggested QoS in our routers and we haven't had a single call
> > > >>> complaining of slow speeds.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> 
> > > >>
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> > > >>> http://signup.wispa.org/
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> 
> > > >>
> > > >>> 
> > > >>>
> > > >>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> > > >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> 
> > > >>
> > > >>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> > > >>> http://signup.wispa.org/
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> 
> > > >>
> > > >>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> > > >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> > > >>>

Re: [WISPA] Want Wireless Broadband Today? Try a WISP

[RickG]

Marlon has always been my hero!
-RickG

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

> Well...11 months ago... =)
>
> He's still famous to me!
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
> --- Albert Einstein
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Robert West  >wrote:
>
> > Way to go, Marlon!  Your 15 minutes of fame has been officially extended.
> >
> > Bob-
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> > Behalf Of Mike Hammett
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 5:50 PM
> > To: wireless@wispa.org
> > Subject: [WISPA] Want Wireless Broadband Today? Try a WISP
> >
> > http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2340369,00.asp
> >
> >
> > -
> > Mike Hammett
> > Intelligent Computing Solutions
> > http://www.ics-il.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> > 
> > WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> > http://signup.wispa.org/
> >
> >
> 
> > 
> >
> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >
> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> > WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> > http://signup.wispa.org/
> >
> >
> 
> >
> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >
> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> >
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
>
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Want Wireless Broadband Today? Try a WISP

[RickG]

Very nice article. I wish there were more like it! Good going guys.
But, nobody commented. We cant leave this as the only post:
"Although WISPs are surviving now, there's doubt about what the future holds
for them. After all,
WiMAXis
coming. Short for Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access,
WiMAX
is an increasingly popular standard designed to supply wireless broadband
access  and
promote interoperability. And in the WISP world, which often relies upon
esoteric proprietary connections, the impact it will have has yet to be
determined."
-RickG

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:

> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2340369,00.asp
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
>
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Was question: now bandwidth use.

[RickG]

Jayson,

Really, I guess it doesnt matter. It's just that your offerings are so
remarkable, its hard to believe its true. Most people are on this list to be
helpful and to get helped. It would be helpful to know who you are, your
business model, and how you do it. My first question would be, how much are
you paying for bandwidth?

Thanks in advance.
-RickG (KyWiFi)

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Jayson Baker wrote:

> I don't think I ever got a response to my question though... what *does* it
> matter?
>
> We were the first broadband ISP in our area in 2001.  We were one of the
> first ISPs to use (5.7) Canopy.  One of the very first to deploy 2.4GHz.
>  One of the very first to deploy 900MHz.  We saw the writing on the wall in
> 2005--Canopy was starting to fall behind in speed compared to it's cost per
> unit.  We sold the network.  I consulted for 4 years, did software
> development, setup a WISP in Costa Rica.  Last year we started offering
> service again, and are again growing very quickly.
>
> Less than 30 seconds on Google and I came up with this: peakinter.net
>
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Travis Johnson  wrote:
>
> > Oh boy... here we go...
> >
> > Just a few weeks ago we tried to track down Jayson on the Motorola
> > mailing list (because several people had issues of knowing where his
> > expertise and experience was coming from). We have never been able to
> > get an idea of how many subs, his real website, company name or any
> > other information about him or the companies he works or consults for.
> > And when asked, all he says is "why does it matter?".
> >
> > Travis
> > Microserv
> >
> > RickG wrote:
> > > Jayson,
> > >
> > > You dont offer speed packages?
> > > I cant find your website at www.spectrasurf.com?
> > >
> > > -RickG
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Jayson Baker 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> All users get limited at 12Mbps.  Most are capable of 8-10ish.
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Robert West <
> robert.w...@just-micro.com
> > >>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> What's your average speed tier?  Maybe it's more noticeable by those
> > who
> > >>> offer slower speeds sue to lack of affordable bandwidth?  Just a
> guess.
> > >>>
> > >>> Yes, I know, bandwidth is bandwidth but someone who is married to
> their
> > >>> network trying to squeeze each kb out of it will be more sensitive to
> > >>> upward
> > >>> swings in the usage as opposed to someone who is more endowed in the
> > >>> bandwidth area.
> > >>>
> > >>> Visuals unintended but it happened and seems to make sense..
> > >>>
> > >>> Bob-
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> -Original Message-
> > >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
> > On
> > >>> Behalf Of can...@believewireless.net
> > >>> Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 9:11 PM
> > >>> To: WISPA General List
> > >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Was question: now bandwidth use.
> > >>>
> > >>> We really aren't seeing much of a change either.   We are seeing a
> > >>> small number of users using more bandwidth but nothing crazy.
> > >>> However, we have plenty of cheap bandwidth with two redundant fiber
> > >>> connections and 60GHz/licensed connection to tower.
> > >>>
> > >>> Our main concern is the limitation of the APs.  Some nights our
> Canopy
> > >>> APs are maxed out on bandwidth.  However, we use the Mikrotik
> > >>> suggested QoS in our routers and we haven't had a single call
> > >>> complaining of slow speeds.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> 
> > >>
> > >>> 
> > >>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> > >>> http://signup.wispa.org/
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> 
> > >>
> > >>> 
> > >>>
> > >>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> > >>>
> > >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> > >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> > >>>
> > >>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> 
> > >>
> > >>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> > >>> http://signup.wispa.org/
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> 
> > >>
> > >>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> > >>>
> > >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> > >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> > >>>
> > >>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> 
> > >> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> > >> http://signup.wispa.org/
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> 
> > >>
> > >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> > >>
> > >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe

Re: [WISPA] 2010: One Question for WISPs

[RickG]

LOL, then I'm the wrong socialist :)

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Robert West wrote:

> It's not anti-capitalistic, you just happen to be the wrong capitalist!  :)
>
> Bob-
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of RickG
> Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 11:53 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2010: One Question for WISPs
>
> It depends. I've always been an optimistic person and things are coming
> together well here, but, I'm very concerned about the way our government
> has
> become so anti-capitalistic. On the positive note that I think the current
> congress is gonna get fired in next Novemenber's election I'd choose B. I
> might have chosen an A but we still have the fellow in the white house to
> deal with. Ask again when he is gone :)
> -RickG
>
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Patrick Leary 
> wrote:
>
> > Happy New Year folks. One simple multiple choice question:
> >
> > For 2010, are you more or less optimistic than you were in 2009?
> >
> > A - Much more
> > B - Somewhat more
> > C - Same
> > D - More pessimistic
> >
> > If you'd care to explain your answer, that's be great.
> >
> > Thank,
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> >
> > Patrick Leary
> > Aperto Networks
> > 813.426.4230 mobile
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> 
> 
> > WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> > http://signup.wispa.org/
> >
> >
>
> 
> 
> >
> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >
> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> >
>
>
>
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
>
> 
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
>
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Wimax gear

[Josh Luthman]

And the only one on this list out of the States?  Is that right?

On 1/5/10, Gino Villarini  wrote:
> 1800 subs, 18 employes and profitable
>
> Sent from my Motorola Startac...
>
>
> On Jan 5, 2010, at 7:15 PM, "Josh Luthman"
>  wrote:
>
>> 200 subs, 2 owners, 3 employees and profitable...
>>
>> Super amazing fortunate we are.
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>> "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
>> --- Albert Einstein
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Matt Jenkins > >wrote:
>>
>>> Our company has almost 800 customers at the moment and 4 employees
>>> and
>>> is profitable!
>>>
>>> Charles Wu wrote:
> Once you get to say 1000+ customers, things like having the staff
> for
> service calls and time to repair for customers are often more
> important
> than the brand of radio or the original cost of the radio. We do
> spend
> more on payroll than radios, despite deploying lots of expensive
> gear.
> Keeping CPE prices down is appreciated and important, but less
> tangible
> ongoing management, troubleshooting, and repair costs must also be
> considered. The reduction in support costs isn't an expection,
> it's a
> reality and requirement in many situations.

 When you're working as a startup, labor costs are essentially zero
 (and
>>> if you're asian like myself, you can call on your
>>> kids/relatives/grandparents to work nights and weekends -- the
>>> classic
>>> Chinese restaurant business model =)

 However, when working with employees (and I don't care how smart /
>>> hard-working / strong willed you are, there's still only 24 hours
>>> in a day)
>>> -- labor costs become a bigger factor as the organization scales

 So this brings up a more interesting debate -- e.g., one-man band /
>>> mom-and-pop vs. organizational strategy

 As an organization, trying to run a WISP with 700 residential
 customers
>>> is a complete waste of time, however, as a one-man-band -- an 700
>>> customer
>>> WISP can be highly profitable

 The problem here is that there's a nasty chasm between what the
 one-man
>>> band can handle and what an organization needs to support itself
>>> (e.g., it
>>> doesn't scale linearly)

 The picture looks more like this

 700 customers -- one-man band (or equivalent) -- highly profitable

 Then -- they start hiring employees to grow and scale the business

 Unfortunately, there's a minimum amount of overhead required, and
 what
>>> was once a profitable business is now bleeding red ink and needs to
>>> reach
>>> 2,000 customers before things get good again

 Which creates an interesting question -- if you're such a WISP, do
 you
>>> just stop and sit tight at 700 customers? Or do you "go-for-broke"
>>> by trying
>>> to grow?

 -Charles


 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-
 boun...@wispa.org] On
>>> Behalf Of jp
 Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 10:36 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wimax gear

 On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 05:28:49PM -0600, Wallace Walcher wrote:
> Having built my WISP from scratch with my own resources and
> currently
>>> being
> debt free in my operations, I often wonder who the people are who
> so
>>> quickly
> classify Mikrotik and Ubiquity gear as trash.  I am making a very
> good
> living deploying such "trash".

 I'm not ashamed of calling their bluff when they say something is
 "carrier class", and it's not even released yet and then has
 firmware
 their either sets the timing wrong to the point of destroying the
 link
 or doesn't do vlans, and the firmware isn't pulled offline because
 it's
 the best stuff available.

 I've got a couple UBNT M links up and like them, and believe it
 has a
 future. I just can't put my whole business on the line while they
 refine
 a product. It is wise and irrestible to try the stuff though.

 I've got a downtown network of UBNT 802.11 gear, and the nanos and
 bullets just can't handle the interference as I'd like. It was
 intended
 to be an upgrade from the breezecom FH gear which was slow but
 reliable.
 The UBNT is faster, but less reliable in the presence of local
 interference. Now, if someone has an interference problem, we
 immediately swap them over to Alvarion 5.4 gear. It is more
 expensive,
 but we know we'll never have a service call after it's put in
 unless it
 gets hit by lightning or the customer wants to upgrade. We would
 have
 been wise to upgrade straight from the old stuff to 5.4. I'd still
 recommend the UBNT CPE for truly rural use.

 Then MT is always making something wonky. A coup

Re: [WISPA] Wimax gear

[Gino Villarini]

1800 subs, 18 employes and profitable

Sent from my Motorola Startac...


On Jan 5, 2010, at 7:15 PM, "Josh Luthman"  
 wrote:

> 200 subs, 2 owners, 3 employees and profitable...
>
> Super amazing fortunate we are.
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
> --- Albert Einstein
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Matt Jenkins  >wrote:
>
>> Our company has almost 800 customers at the moment and 4 employees  
>> and
>> is profitable!
>>
>> Charles Wu wrote:
 Once you get to say 1000+ customers, things like having the staff  
 for
 service calls and time to repair for customers are often more  
 important
 than the brand of radio or the original cost of the radio. We do  
 spend
 more on payroll than radios, despite deploying lots of expensive  
 gear.
 Keeping CPE prices down is appreciated and important, but less  
 tangible
 ongoing management, troubleshooting, and repair costs must also be
 considered. The reduction in support costs isn't an expection,  
 it's a
 reality and requirement in many situations.
>>>
>>> When you're working as a startup, labor costs are essentially zero  
>>> (and
>> if you're asian like myself, you can call on your
>> kids/relatives/grandparents to work nights and weekends -- the  
>> classic
>> Chinese restaurant business model =)
>>>
>>> However, when working with employees (and I don't care how smart /
>> hard-working / strong willed you are, there's still only 24 hours  
>> in a day)
>> -- labor costs become a bigger factor as the organization scales
>>>
>>> So this brings up a more interesting debate -- e.g., one-man band /
>> mom-and-pop vs. organizational strategy
>>>
>>> As an organization, trying to run a WISP with 700 residential  
>>> customers
>> is a complete waste of time, however, as a one-man-band -- an 700  
>> customer
>> WISP can be highly profitable
>>>
>>> The problem here is that there's a nasty chasm between what the  
>>> one-man
>> band can handle and what an organization needs to support itself  
>> (e.g., it
>> doesn't scale linearly)
>>>
>>> The picture looks more like this
>>>
>>> 700 customers -- one-man band (or equivalent) -- highly profitable
>>>
>>> Then -- they start hiring employees to grow and scale the business
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, there's a minimum amount of overhead required, and  
>>> what
>> was once a profitable business is now bleeding red ink and needs to  
>> reach
>> 2,000 customers before things get good again
>>>
>>> Which creates an interesting question -- if you're such a WISP, do  
>>> you
>> just stop and sit tight at 700 customers? Or do you "go-for-broke"  
>> by trying
>> to grow?
>>>
>>> -Charles
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- 
>>> boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of jp
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 10:36 AM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wimax gear
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 05:28:49PM -0600, Wallace Walcher wrote:
 Having built my WISP from scratch with my own resources and  
 currently
>> being
 debt free in my operations, I often wonder who the people are who  
 so
>> quickly
 classify Mikrotik and Ubiquity gear as trash.  I am making a very  
 good
 living deploying such "trash".
>>>
>>> I'm not ashamed of calling their bluff when they say something is
>>> "carrier class", and it's not even released yet and then has  
>>> firmware
>>> their either sets the timing wrong to the point of destroying the  
>>> link
>>> or doesn't do vlans, and the firmware isn't pulled offline because  
>>> it's
>>> the best stuff available.
>>>
>>> I've got a couple UBNT M links up and like them, and believe it  
>>> has a
>>> future. I just can't put my whole business on the line while they  
>>> refine
>>> a product. It is wise and irrestible to try the stuff though.
>>>
>>> I've got a downtown network of UBNT 802.11 gear, and the nanos and
>>> bullets just can't handle the interference as I'd like. It was  
>>> intended
>>> to be an upgrade from the breezecom FH gear which was slow but  
>>> reliable.
>>> The UBNT is faster, but less reliable in the presence of local
>>> interference. Now, if someone has an interference problem, we
>>> immediately swap them over to Alvarion 5.4 gear. It is more  
>>> expensive,
>>> but we know we'll never have a service call after it's put in  
>>> unless it
>>> gets hit by lightning or the customer wants to upgrade. We would  
>>> have
>>> been wise to upgrade straight from the old stuff to 5.4. I'd still
>>> recommend the UBNT CPE for truly rural use.
>>>
>>> Then MT is always making something wonky. A couple years ago, you  
>>> could
>>> crash the MT with a SNMP query. Now, if you put an N card in and  
>>> upgrade
>>> the firmware in your 433ah to 4.4, you might lose the ethernet  
>>

Re: [WISPA] Wimax gear

[Josh Luthman]

200 subs, 2 owners, 3 employees and profitable...

Super amazing fortunate we are.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
--- Albert Einstein


On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Matt Jenkins wrote:

> Our company has almost 800 customers at the moment and 4 employees and
> is profitable!
>
> Charles Wu wrote:
> >> Once you get to say 1000+ customers, things like having the staff for
> >> service calls and time to repair for customers are often more important
> >> than the brand of radio or the original cost of the radio. We do spend
> >> more on payroll than radios, despite deploying lots of expensive gear.
> >> Keeping CPE prices down is appreciated and important, but less tangible
> >> ongoing management, troubleshooting, and repair costs must also be
> >> considered. The reduction in support costs isn't an expection, it's a
> >> reality and requirement in many situations.
> >
> > When you're working as a startup, labor costs are essentially zero (and
> if you're asian like myself, you can call on your
> kids/relatives/grandparents to work nights and weekends -- the classic
> Chinese restaurant business model =)
> >
> > However, when working with employees (and I don't care how smart /
> hard-working / strong willed you are, there's still only 24 hours in a day)
> -- labor costs become a bigger factor as the organization scales
> >
> > So this brings up a more interesting debate -- e.g., one-man band /
> mom-and-pop vs. organizational strategy
> >
> > As an organization, trying to run a WISP with 700 residential customers
> is a complete waste of time, however, as a one-man-band -- an 700 customer
> WISP can be highly profitable
> >
> > The problem here is that there's a nasty chasm between what the one-man
> band can handle and what an organization needs to support itself (e.g., it
> doesn't scale linearly)
> >
> > The picture looks more like this
> >
> > 700 customers -- one-man band (or equivalent) -- highly profitable
> >
> > Then -- they start hiring employees to grow and scale the business
> >
> > Unfortunately, there's a minimum amount of overhead required, and what
> was once a profitable business is now bleeding red ink and needs to reach
> 2,000 customers before things get good again
> >
> > Which creates an interesting question -- if you're such a WISP, do you
> just stop and sit tight at 700 customers? Or do you "go-for-broke" by trying
> to grow?
> >
> > -Charles
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of jp
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 10:36 AM
> > To: WISPA General List
> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wimax gear
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 05:28:49PM -0600, Wallace Walcher wrote:
> >> Having built my WISP from scratch with my own resources and currently
> being
> >> debt free in my operations, I often wonder who the people are who so
> quickly
> >> classify Mikrotik and Ubiquity gear as trash.  I am making a very good
> >> living deploying such "trash".
> >
> > I'm not ashamed of calling their bluff when they say something is
> > "carrier class", and it's not even released yet and then has firmware
> > their either sets the timing wrong to the point of destroying the link
> > or doesn't do vlans, and the firmware isn't pulled offline because it's
> > the best stuff available.
> >
> > I've got a couple UBNT M links up and like them, and believe it has a
> > future. I just can't put my whole business on the line while they refine
> > a product. It is wise and irrestible to try the stuff though.
> >
> > I've got a downtown network of UBNT 802.11 gear, and the nanos and
> > bullets just can't handle the interference as I'd like. It was intended
> > to be an upgrade from the breezecom FH gear which was slow but reliable.
> > The UBNT is faster, but less reliable in the presence of local
> > interference. Now, if someone has an interference problem, we
> > immediately swap them over to Alvarion 5.4 gear. It is more expensive,
> > but we know we'll never have a service call after it's put in unless it
> > gets hit by lightning or the customer wants to upgrade. We would have
> > been wise to upgrade straight from the old stuff to 5.4. I'd still
> > recommend the UBNT CPE for truly rural use.
> >
> > Then MT is always making something wonky. A couple years ago, you could
> > crash the MT with a SNMP query. Now, if you put an N card in and upgrade
> > the firmware in your 433ah to 4.4, you might lose the ethernet ports. I
> > stay 1-4 months behind on their firmware because it's a mystery what you
> > might get. Changelogs show less than half of what they change. I do like
> > them for basic routing and also use their gear for a few links. I think
> > it's a step up from UBNT for ptp 802.11 based links. I also like MT
> > because it's pretty low power use, which has practical value for solar
> >

Re: [WISPA] Wimax gear

[Matt Jenkins]

Our company has almost 800 customers at the moment and 4 employees and 
is profitable!

Charles Wu wrote:
>> Once you get to say 1000+ customers, things like having the staff for 
>> service calls and time to repair for customers are often more important 
>> than the brand of radio or the original cost of the radio. We do spend 
>> more on payroll than radios, despite deploying lots of expensive gear. 
>> Keeping CPE prices down is appreciated and important, but less tangible 
>> ongoing management, troubleshooting, and repair costs must also be 
>> considered. The reduction in support costs isn't an expection, it's a 
>> reality and requirement in many situations.
> 
> When you're working as a startup, labor costs are essentially zero (and if 
> you're asian like myself, you can call on your kids/relatives/grandparents to 
> work nights and weekends -- the classic Chinese restaurant business model =)
> 
> However, when working with employees (and I don't care how smart / 
> hard-working / strong willed you are, there's still only 24 hours in a day) 
> -- labor costs become a bigger factor as the organization scales
> 
> So this brings up a more interesting debate -- e.g., one-man band / 
> mom-and-pop vs. organizational strategy
> 
> As an organization, trying to run a WISP with 700 residential customers is a 
> complete waste of time, however, as a one-man-band -- an 700 customer WISP 
> can be highly profitable
> 
> The problem here is that there's a nasty chasm between what the one-man band 
> can handle and what an organization needs to support itself (e.g., it doesn't 
> scale linearly)
> 
> The picture looks more like this
> 
> 700 customers -- one-man band (or equivalent) -- highly profitable
> 
> Then -- they start hiring employees to grow and scale the business
> 
> Unfortunately, there's a minimum amount of overhead required, and what was 
> once a profitable business is now bleeding red ink and needs to reach 2,000 
> customers before things get good again
> 
> Which creates an interesting question -- if you're such a WISP, do you just 
> stop and sit tight at 700 customers? Or do you "go-for-broke" by trying to 
> grow?
> 
> -Charles
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
> Behalf Of jp
> Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 10:36 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wimax gear
> 
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 05:28:49PM -0600, Wallace Walcher wrote:
>> Having built my WISP from scratch with my own resources and currently being
>> debt free in my operations, I often wonder who the people are who so quickly
>> classify Mikrotik and Ubiquity gear as trash.  I am making a very good
>> living deploying such "trash".
> 
> I'm not ashamed of calling their bluff when they say something is 
> "carrier class", and it's not even released yet and then has firmware 
> their either sets the timing wrong to the point of destroying the link 
> or doesn't do vlans, and the firmware isn't pulled offline because it's 
> the best stuff available.
> 
> I've got a couple UBNT M links up and like them, and believe it has a 
> future. I just can't put my whole business on the line while they refine 
> a product. It is wise and irrestible to try the stuff though.
> 
> I've got a downtown network of UBNT 802.11 gear, and the nanos and 
> bullets just can't handle the interference as I'd like. It was intended 
> to be an upgrade from the breezecom FH gear which was slow but reliable. 
> The UBNT is faster, but less reliable in the presence of local 
> interference. Now, if someone has an interference problem, we 
> immediately swap them over to Alvarion 5.4 gear. It is more expensive, 
> but we know we'll never have a service call after it's put in unless it 
> gets hit by lightning or the customer wants to upgrade. We would have 
> been wise to upgrade straight from the old stuff to 5.4. I'd still 
> recommend the UBNT CPE for truly rural use.
> 
> Then MT is always making something wonky. A couple years ago, you could 
> crash the MT with a SNMP query. Now, if you put an N card in and upgrade 
> the firmware in your 433ah to 4.4, you might lose the ethernet ports. I 
> stay 1-4 months behind on their firmware because it's a mystery what you 
> might get. Changelogs show less than half of what they change. I do like 
> them for basic routing and also use their gear for a few links. I think 
> it's a step up from UBNT for ptp 802.11 based links. I also like MT 
> because it's pretty low power use, which has practical value for solar 
> sites or sites needing long battery backup. We don't have the time to 
> tinker to use it for everything. We tried 900 with SR9 then XR9 and the 
> reliability wasn't there compared to what we were accustomed to with 
> Trango and Alvarion. 
> 
> Once you get to say 1000+ customers, things like having the staff for 
> service calls and time to repair for customers are often more important 
> than the brand of rad

Re: [WISPA] Want Wireless Broadband Today? Try a WISP

[Josh Luthman]

Well...11 months ago... =)

He's still famous to me!

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
--- Albert Einstein


On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Robert West wrote:

> Way to go, Marlon!  Your 15 minutes of fame has been officially extended.
>
> Bob-
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Mike Hammett
> Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 5:50 PM
> To: wireless@wispa.org
> Subject: [WISPA] Want Wireless Broadband Today? Try a WISP
>
> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2340369,00.asp
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
>
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
>
> 
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
>
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Want Wireless Broadband Today? Try a WISP

[Robert West]

Way to go, Marlon!  Your 15 minutes of fame has been officially extended.

Bob-

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 5:50 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: [WISPA] Want Wireless Broadband Today? Try a WISP

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2340369,00.asp


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] Want Wireless Broadband Today? Try a WISP

[Mike Hammett]

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2340369,00.asp


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Wimax gear

[Charles Wu]

>Once you get to say 1000+ customers, things like having the staff for 
>service calls and time to repair for customers are often more important 
>than the brand of radio or the original cost of the radio. We do spend 
>more on payroll than radios, despite deploying lots of expensive gear. 
>Keeping CPE prices down is appreciated and important, but less tangible 
>ongoing management, troubleshooting, and repair costs must also be 
>considered. The reduction in support costs isn't an expection, it's a 
>reality and requirement in many situations.

When you're working as a startup, labor costs are essentially zero (and if 
you're asian like myself, you can call on your kids/relatives/grandparents to 
work nights and weekends -- the classic Chinese restaurant business model =)

However, when working with employees (and I don't care how smart / hard-working 
/ strong willed you are, there's still only 24 hours in a day) -- labor costs 
become a bigger factor as the organization scales

So this brings up a more interesting debate -- e.g., one-man band / mom-and-pop 
vs. organizational strategy

As an organization, trying to run a WISP with 700 residential customers is a 
complete waste of time, however, as a one-man-band -- an 700 customer WISP can 
be highly profitable

The problem here is that there's a nasty chasm between what the one-man band 
can handle and what an organization needs to support itself (e.g., it doesn't 
scale linearly)

The picture looks more like this

700 customers -- one-man band (or equivalent) -- highly profitable

Then -- they start hiring employees to grow and scale the business

Unfortunately, there's a minimum amount of overhead required, and what was once 
a profitable business is now bleeding red ink and needs to reach 2,000 
customers before things get good again

Which creates an interesting question -- if you're such a WISP, do you just 
stop and sit tight at 700 customers? Or do you "go-for-broke" by trying to grow?

-Charles


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of jp
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 10:36 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wimax gear

On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 05:28:49PM -0600, Wallace Walcher wrote:
> Having built my WISP from scratch with my own resources and currently being
> debt free in my operations, I often wonder who the people are who so quickly
> classify Mikrotik and Ubiquity gear as trash.  I am making a very good
> living deploying such "trash".

I'm not ashamed of calling their bluff when they say something is 
"carrier class", and it's not even released yet and then has firmware 
their either sets the timing wrong to the point of destroying the link 
or doesn't do vlans, and the firmware isn't pulled offline because it's 
the best stuff available.

I've got a couple UBNT M links up and like them, and believe it has a 
future. I just can't put my whole business on the line while they refine 
a product. It is wise and irrestible to try the stuff though.

I've got a downtown network of UBNT 802.11 gear, and the nanos and 
bullets just can't handle the interference as I'd like. It was intended 
to be an upgrade from the breezecom FH gear which was slow but reliable. 
The UBNT is faster, but less reliable in the presence of local 
interference. Now, if someone has an interference problem, we 
immediately swap them over to Alvarion 5.4 gear. It is more expensive, 
but we know we'll never have a service call after it's put in unless it 
gets hit by lightning or the customer wants to upgrade. We would have 
been wise to upgrade straight from the old stuff to 5.4. I'd still 
recommend the UBNT CPE for truly rural use.

Then MT is always making something wonky. A couple years ago, you could 
crash the MT with a SNMP query. Now, if you put an N card in and upgrade 
the firmware in your 433ah to 4.4, you might lose the ethernet ports. I 
stay 1-4 months behind on their firmware because it's a mystery what you 
might get. Changelogs show less than half of what they change. I do like 
them for basic routing and also use their gear for a few links. I think 
it's a step up from UBNT for ptp 802.11 based links. I also like MT 
because it's pretty low power use, which has practical value for solar 
sites or sites needing long battery backup. We don't have the time to 
tinker to use it for everything. We tried 900 with SR9 then XR9 and the 
reliability wasn't there compared to what we were accustomed to with 
Trango and Alvarion. 

Once you get to say 1000+ customers, things like having the staff for 
service calls and time to repair for customers are often more important 
than the brand of radio or the original cost of the radio. We do spend 
more on payroll than radios, despite deploying lots of expensive gear. 
Keeping CPE prices down is appreciated and important, but less tangible 
ongoing management, troubleshooting, and repair costs must also be 
considered. The reduction in 

Re: [WISPA] Wimax gear

[jp]

On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 05:28:49PM -0600, Wallace Walcher wrote:
> Having built my WISP from scratch with my own resources and currently being
> debt free in my operations, I often wonder who the people are who so quickly
> classify Mikrotik and Ubiquity gear as trash.  I am making a very good
> living deploying such "trash".

I'm not ashamed of calling their bluff when they say something is 
"carrier class", and it's not even released yet and then has firmware 
their either sets the timing wrong to the point of destroying the link 
or doesn't do vlans, and the firmware isn't pulled offline because it's 
the best stuff available.

I've got a couple UBNT M links up and like them, and believe it has a 
future. I just can't put my whole business on the line while they refine 
a product. It is wise and irrestible to try the stuff though.

I've got a downtown network of UBNT 802.11 gear, and the nanos and 
bullets just can't handle the interference as I'd like. It was intended 
to be an upgrade from the breezecom FH gear which was slow but reliable. 
The UBNT is faster, but less reliable in the presence of local 
interference. Now, if someone has an interference problem, we 
immediately swap them over to Alvarion 5.4 gear. It is more expensive, 
but we know we'll never have a service call after it's put in unless it 
gets hit by lightning or the customer wants to upgrade. We would have 
been wise to upgrade straight from the old stuff to 5.4. I'd still 
recommend the UBNT CPE for truly rural use.

Then MT is always making something wonky. A couple years ago, you could 
crash the MT with a SNMP query. Now, if you put an N card in and upgrade 
the firmware in your 433ah to 4.4, you might lose the ethernet ports. I 
stay 1-4 months behind on their firmware because it's a mystery what you 
might get. Changelogs show less than half of what they change. I do like 
them for basic routing and also use their gear for a few links. I think 
it's a step up from UBNT for ptp 802.11 based links. I also like MT 
because it's pretty low power use, which has practical value for solar 
sites or sites needing long battery backup. We don't have the time to 
tinker to use it for everything. We tried 900 with SR9 then XR9 and the 
reliability wasn't there compared to what we were accustomed to with 
Trango and Alvarion. 

Once you get to say 1000+ customers, things like having the staff for 
service calls and time to repair for customers are often more important 
than the brand of radio or the original cost of the radio. We do spend 
more on payroll than radios, despite deploying lots of expensive gear. 
Keeping CPE prices down is appreciated and important, but less tangible 
ongoing management, troubleshooting, and repair costs must also be 
considered. The reduction in support costs isn't an expection, it's a 
reality and requirement in many situations.

A minor glitch that affects a few customers outside of town is not a big 
deal, but if the glitch requires half a day on the road or requires 
aircraft, boats, snowcats, or sleds, it could cost hundreds of dollars 
and mess up a lot of customers.

I'd fear for my welfare if everything was built on UBNT and MT though.

We use Alvarion 900, 2.4 (not going forward), 5.4, 5.8, Trango (lots of 
900 installed, but not going forward), MT, UBNT, and now Solectek and 
Radwin.

My WISP is pretty low debt 100% privately owned and financed, and we 
often choose higher end equipment. You do get what you pay for, but of 
course there are diminshing returns the higher end you go.


> My perception is they are either people who are not spending their own money
> - they are working for the investor, or possibly borrowing or leasing the
> equipment, or they are a vendor promoting their own high margin goods.
> Those that are WISPs seem to have the perception that it is better to
> install higher cost equipment, no matter what the cost, if it will provide
> them an expected reduction in support costs.
> 
> What I have found in my area is that people who deploy such equipment have a
> very hard go of it, mainly because the replacement costs during the storm
> season eat their lunch.  My operational plan is different than some - I
> focus on residential customers on the outskirts of town that do not have
> access to Cable and DSL.  Those focusing on business accounts in cities
> would understandably have a different perspective.  But I feel very
> fortunate to have a sub $200 total CPE cost (sometimes sub $100) with the
> Mikrotik-type solution.
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

-- 
/*
Jason Philbrook   |   Midcoast Internet Sol

Re: [WISPA] Was question: now bandwidth use.

[Gino Villarini]

 From Peak's website:

Fast, Reliable, Secure... That's what you get with our service. We  
took a look at off-the-shelf systems like Motorola Canopy, Trango,  
Mikrotik and decided they wouldn't meet our needs. We use innovative  
new hardware that is software neutral. We've developed our own open- 
source software based on the powerful Linux operating system.

Sent from my Motorola Startac...


On Jan 5, 2010, at 9:30 AM, "Travis Johnson"  wrote:

> I think he has said he's using Mikrotik...
>
> Gino Villarini wrote:
>> Wimax provider?
>>
>> Sent from my Motorola Startac...
>>
>>
>> On Jan 5, 2010, at 12:45 AM, "Jayson Baker" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I don't think I ever got a response to my question though... what
>>> *does* it
>>> matter?
>>>
>>> We were the first broadband ISP in our area in 2001.  We were one of
>>> the
>>> first ISPs to use (5.7) Canopy.  One of the very first to deploy
>>> 2.4GHz.
>>> One of the very first to deploy 900MHz.  We saw the writing on the
>>> wall in
>>> 2005--Canopy was starting to fall behind in speed compared to it's
>>> cost per
>>> unit.  We sold the network.  I consulted for 4 years, did software
>>> development, setup a WISP in Costa Rica.  Last year we started
>>> offering
>>> service again, and are again growing very quickly.
>>>
>>> Less than 30 seconds on Google and I came up with this:  
>>> peakinter.net
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Travis Johnson   
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
 Oh boy... here we go...

 Just a few weeks ago we tried to track down Jayson on the Motorola
 mailing list (because several people had issues of knowing where  
 his
 expertise and experience was coming from). We have never been  
 able to
 get an idea of how many subs, his real website, company name or any
 other information about him or the companies he works or consults
 for.
 And when asked, all he says is "why does it matter?".

 Travis
 Microserv

 RickG wrote:

> Jayson,
>
> You dont offer speed packages?
> I cant find your website at www.spectrasurf.com?
>
> -RickG
>
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Jayson Baker
> 
>
 wrote:

>
>> All users get limited at 12Mbps.  Most are capable of 8-10ish.
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Robert West >
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> What's your average speed tier? Maybe it's more noticeable by
>>> those
>>>
 who

>>> offer slower speeds sue to lack of affordable bandwidth?  Just a
>>> guess.
>>>
>>> Yes, I know, bandwidth is bandwidth but someone who is married
>>> to their
>>> network trying to squeeze each kb out of it will be more
>>> sensitive to
>>> upward
>>> swings in the usage as opposed to someone who is more endowed in
>>> the
>>> bandwidth area.
>>>
>>> Visuals unintended but it happened and seems to make sense..
>>>
>>> Bob-
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-
>>> boun...@wispa.org]
>>>
 On

>>> Behalf Of can...@believewireless.net
>>> Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 9:11 PM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Was question: now bandwidth use.
>>>
>>> We really aren't seeing much of a change either.   We are  
>>> seeing a
>>> small number of users using more bandwidth but nothing crazy.
>>> However, we have plenty of cheap bandwidth with two redundant
>>> fiber
>>> connections and 60GHz/licensed connection to tower.
>>>
>>> Our main concern is the limitation of the APs.  Some nights our
>>> Canopy
>>> APs are maxed out on bandwidth.  However, we use the Mikrotik
>>> suggested QoS in our routers and we haven't had a single call
>>> complaining of slow speeds.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
 ---
 ---
 ---
 ---

>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
 ---
 ---
 ---
 ---

>>> 
>>>
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
 ---
 ---
 ---
 ---
 --- 
 -

>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
 ---
 ---
 ---
 ---
 --- 
 -

>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsub

Re: [WISPA] Was question: now bandwidth use.

[Travis Johnson]

I think he has said he's using Mikrotik...

Gino Villarini wrote:
> Wimax provider?
>
> Sent from my Motorola Startac...
>
>
> On Jan 5, 2010, at 12:45 AM, "Jayson Baker"   
> wrote:
>
>   
>> I don't think I ever got a response to my question though... what  
>> *does* it
>> matter?
>>
>> We were the first broadband ISP in our area in 2001.  We were one of  
>> the
>> first ISPs to use (5.7) Canopy.  One of the very first to deploy  
>> 2.4GHz.
>> One of the very first to deploy 900MHz.  We saw the writing on the  
>> wall in
>> 2005--Canopy was starting to fall behind in speed compared to it's  
>> cost per
>> unit.  We sold the network.  I consulted for 4 years, did software
>> development, setup a WISP in Costa Rica.  Last year we started  
>> offering
>> service again, and are again growing very quickly.
>>
>> Less than 30 seconds on Google and I came up with this: peakinter.net
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Travis Johnson  wrote:
>>
>> 
>>> Oh boy... here we go...
>>>
>>> Just a few weeks ago we tried to track down Jayson on the Motorola
>>> mailing list (because several people had issues of knowing where his
>>> expertise and experience was coming from). We have never been able to
>>> get an idea of how many subs, his real website, company name or any
>>> other information about him or the companies he works or consults  
>>> for.
>>> And when asked, all he says is "why does it matter?".
>>>
>>> Travis
>>> Microserv
>>>
>>> RickG wrote:
>>>   
 Jayson,

 You dont offer speed packages?
 I cant find your website at www.spectrasurf.com?

 -RickG

 On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Jayson Baker  
 
 
>>> wrote:
>>>   
 
> All users get limited at 12Mbps.  Most are capable of 8-10ish.
>
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Robert West 
>   
>> wrote:
>>
>> What's your average speed tier? Maybe it's more noticeable by  
>> those
>> 
>>> who
>>>   
>> offer slower speeds sue to lack of affordable bandwidth?  Just a  
>> guess.
>>
>> Yes, I know, bandwidth is bandwidth but someone who is married  
>> to their
>> network trying to squeeze each kb out of it will be more  
>> sensitive to
>> upward
>> swings in the usage as opposed to someone who is more endowed in  
>> the
>> bandwidth area.
>>
>> Visuals unintended but it happened and seems to make sense..
>>
>> Bob-
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- 
>> boun...@wispa.org]
>> 
>>> On
>>>   
>> Behalf Of can...@believewireless.net
>> Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 9:11 PM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Was question: now bandwidth use.
>>
>> We really aren't seeing much of a change either.   We are seeing a
>> small number of users using more bandwidth but nothing crazy.
>> However, we have plenty of cheap bandwidth with two redundant  
>> fiber
>> connections and 60GHz/licensed connection to tower.
>>
>> Our main concern is the limitation of the APs.  Some nights our  
>> Canopy
>> APs are maxed out on bandwidth.  However, we use the Mikrotik
>> suggested QoS in our routers and we haven't had a single call
>> complaining of slow speeds.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>> --- 
>>> --- 
>>> --- 
>>> ---
>>>   
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>> --- 
>>> --- 
>>> --- 
>>> ---
>>>   
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>> --- 
>>> --- 
>>> --- 
>>> --- 
>>> 
>>>   
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>> --- 
>>> --- 
>>> --- 
>>> --- 
>>> 
>>>   
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>>
>> 
>   
>>> --- 
>>> --- 
>>> --- 
>>> --- 
>>> 
>>>   
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
>
>
>   
>>> --- 
>>> --- 
>>> --- 
>>> --- 
>>> 

Re: [WISPA] Was question: now bandwidth use.

[Gino Villarini]

Wimax provider?

Sent from my Motorola Startac...


On Jan 5, 2010, at 12:45 AM, "Jayson Baker"   
wrote:

> I don't think I ever got a response to my question though... what  
> *does* it
> matter?
>
> We were the first broadband ISP in our area in 2001.  We were one of  
> the
> first ISPs to use (5.7) Canopy.  One of the very first to deploy  
> 2.4GHz.
> One of the very first to deploy 900MHz.  We saw the writing on the  
> wall in
> 2005--Canopy was starting to fall behind in speed compared to it's  
> cost per
> unit.  We sold the network.  I consulted for 4 years, did software
> development, setup a WISP in Costa Rica.  Last year we started  
> offering
> service again, and are again growing very quickly.
>
> Less than 30 seconds on Google and I came up with this: peakinter.net
>
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Travis Johnson  wrote:
>
>> Oh boy... here we go...
>>
>> Just a few weeks ago we tried to track down Jayson on the Motorola
>> mailing list (because several people had issues of knowing where his
>> expertise and experience was coming from). We have never been able to
>> get an idea of how many subs, his real website, company name or any
>> other information about him or the companies he works or consults  
>> for.
>> And when asked, all he says is "why does it matter?".
>>
>> Travis
>> Microserv
>>
>> RickG wrote:
>>> Jayson,
>>>
>>> You dont offer speed packages?
>>> I cant find your website at www.spectrasurf.com?
>>>
>>> -RickG
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Jayson Baker  
>>> 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
 All users get limited at 12Mbps.  Most are capable of 8-10ish.

 On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Robert West >>>
> wrote:
>
> What's your average speed tier? Maybe it's more noticeable by  
> those
>> who
> offer slower speeds sue to lack of affordable bandwidth?  Just a  
> guess.
>
> Yes, I know, bandwidth is bandwidth but someone who is married  
> to their
> network trying to squeeze each kb out of it will be more  
> sensitive to
> upward
> swings in the usage as opposed to someone who is more endowed in  
> the
> bandwidth area.
>
> Visuals unintended but it happened and seems to make sense..
>
> Bob-
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- 
> boun...@wispa.org]
>> On
> Behalf Of can...@believewireless.net
> Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 9:11 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Was question: now bandwidth use.
>
> We really aren't seeing much of a change either.   We are seeing a
> small number of users using more bandwidth but nothing crazy.
> However, we have plenty of cheap bandwidth with two redundant  
> fiber
> connections and 60GHz/licensed connection to tower.
>
> Our main concern is the limitation of the APs.  Some nights our  
> Canopy
> APs are maxed out on bandwidth.  However, we use the Mikrotik
> suggested QoS in our routers and we haven't had a single call
> complaining of slow speeds.
>
>
>
>
>

>> --- 
>> --- 
>> --- 
>> ---

> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
>
>
>

>> --- 
>> --- 
>> --- 
>> ---

> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
>
>
>

>> --- 
>> --- 
>> --- 
>> --- 
>> 

> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
>
>
>

>> --- 
>> --- 
>> --- 
>> --- 
>> 

> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>


>> --- 
>> --- 
>> --- 
>> --- 
>> 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/


>> --- 
>> --- 
>> --- 
>> --- 
>> 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --- 
>> --- 
>> --- 
>> --- 
>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>>
>> --- 
>> --- 
>> --- 
>> --- 
>> -