Re: [WISPA] RB333 heat
Once upon a time, a man said that hell was full so they sent him to St. Geo. - Original Message - From: Randy Cosby [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 4:53 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333 heat Ow, definitely don't want to install those here in St. George. It gets down to 95 around midnight... Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, With temps now hitting 95F in the late afternoon, we are seeing several RB333 boards shut down and/or reboot. Once it cools down they go back to running fine. We have seen 5 boards out of 50 we have installed fail. They are all in DCE cases. Just wanted to share with everyone in case they are seeing strange problems with these boards. Travis Microserv 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/ -- Randy Cosby Vice President InfoWest, Inc office: 435-773-6071 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] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP
Yeahbut, recognizing an arbitrage opportunity does not trigger my ethical shutdown circuit. - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 5:33 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP A lot of times, flipping a house is nothing more than putting on a fresh coat of paint. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 4:24 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP Hmmm, didn't realize flipping houses was an ethical gray area... (gosh, buy a distressed property, gut and redo the kitchen and bathroom, give it some landscaping- and make some dough. That is unethical? You know some of the original colonies of the new world had rules against charging interest and making a profit. They were not too successful. Adam Smith had some things to say about the subject.) - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 3:09 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP I know that a certain number of us ARE going to build a network for the sole purpose of suckering...errr, selling it to someone else. Now, I have severe ethical disagreements with this notion. It reminds me of flipping houses or speculative oil investing, perhaps? Now, to build a business SOLELY for the purpose of selling for a huge chunk of money to someone larger, of planned consolidation seems self-defeating. yes, you might profit, but wha have you really done productively? Still, there are many of us who are NOT intending to build to sell. We're not in the business of flipping customers to someone else. In that case, overspending for the return on your dollar makes little sense. I'm not sure if ANY hardware platform makes sense in this industry. If we run the numbers, does it actually havea positive return? I suspect not. Still, for those of us who aer NOT in the business of polishing up a turd to sell to someone else ( You have no idea how long I've waited to use that term, since I read it a few years ago!), the investment and prices don't make any real sense... insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: David Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 6:10 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP A number of WISPS are moving to this platform as they find that the higher end equipment is worth more on a buyout. Lets put it this way. If you have a network to sell, how much more do you think you will get if you have Cisco instead of Mikrotik? Nothing against them, but the quality of your infrastructure is heavily weighed during a buyout. If you don't agree, check the many spam's on this and other lists from the guys buying networks. Some won't even look at you if you don't have Canopy or better equipment. 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] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP
What is your opinion about the greatness of WiMax based upon? - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 7:19 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP I believe that WiMax is great... greater than equipment we currently use. I just don't use it at this time because of the cost. I also don't buy into a lot of the hype people (press, manufacturers, vendors, others) are pushing. I had a project that required 10 meg of synchronous, committed bandwidth per customer. I was told (by more than one group) because of the WiMax magic, I could put 2 - 3 customers on equipment capable of 23 megs. Sorry, you simply cannot put 10 pounds of shit in a 5 pound box, no matter the magic. Other than Mikrotik, only the AN-80i would have been worth it. I do appreciate the FCC's requirement of equipment getting along with dissimilar equipment. Who knows when we'll have another Canopy or Tsunami introduced that just doesn't play well with others. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 11:38 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP I do not think we should build our networks for the sole purpose of suckering, err, selling to someone else. I do believe that I want anything I build to have value in the event I do sell. That is not suckering anyone. Why not build something that holds value or appreciates in value? I know a future plan for WISPs to build WiMax networks in 3.65 would result in better networks, better valuations for WISPs and better economies of scale. Leaning on 802.11 further is just not the plan we should be using for new bands and new opportunities like we have in 3650. We have a chance to build something greater than we have now. WiMax is what the rest of the world is already using in the 3.4 thru 3.8 GHz band. Do any of you think it is smarter for us to abandon the global scale afforded to us if we adopt WiMax in 3.65? I am surprised more of you are not speaking up and saying you agree with this philosophy. Dividing the camp on this will not help us as an industry. I would like to see this group, for once, accept that we need to do something together, as a group, for the common good. I think this is that opportunity. I see little reason for us to take any other course of action in 3.65 GHz. WISPs need to do something as a group to help our industry. WiMax in 3.65 is that logical step for us to work together and reach some scale and some value. This is not about suckering anyone or being stuck in a rut. This is a chance for us to move to the next level. It is almost embarrassing to me that we are actually behind the rest of the world here in the US when it comes to this band. WiMax is a serious platform with many advantages over anything else we have built and used. The light licensed opportunities in 3.65 are an incredible experiment that we need to show success in. If we choose WiMax and adopt this as the platform for 3.65 I believe we will advance our entire industry to a higher level of funding opportunities, operational reliability, more service offerings, etc. Scriv On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 4:09 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know that a certain number of us ARE going to build a network for the sole purpose of suckering...errr, selling it to someone else. Now, I have severe ethical disagreements with this notion. It reminds me of flipping houses or speculative oil investing, perhaps? Now, to build a business SOLELY for the purpose of selling for a huge chunk of money to someone larger, of planned consolidation seems self-defeating. yes, you might profit, but wha have you really done productively? Still, there are many of us who are NOT intending to build to sell. We're not in the business of flipping customers to someone else. In that case, overspending for the return on your dollar makes little sense. I'm not sure if ANY hardware platform makes sense in this industry. If we run the numbers, does it actually havea positive return? I suspect not. Still, for those of us who aer NOT in the business of polishing up a turd to sell to someone else ( You have no idea how long I've waited to use that term, since I read it a few years ago!), the investment and prices don't make any real sense... insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: David Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 6:10 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP A number of WISPS are moving to this platform as they find that the higher end equipment is worth more on a buyout.
Re: [WISPA] solar equipment / partners?
I have been doing solar powered radio sites for 25 years. I will never do one where commercial power is available. Not sure how folks buying panels at $5/watt can think this is a good deal compared with 7 cents per 1000 watts. - Original Message - From: Rogelio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Charles N Wyble [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 10:14 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] solar equipment / partners? Charles N Wyble wrote: We are looking to deploy several hundred radios as well for a large scale private network, and want it to be resilient as possible. This includes power and back haul connectivity. Solar looks to be a good backup power option, and with the price of everything increasing perhaps a good primary option? Yeah, apparently people have been doing the math on the power required and the amount saved, and apparently it's significant. Not sure how they can know this without looking at specific equipment, but apparently it's worth seriously looking into, in their opinion. 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] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP
Canopy is outdoor. I don't want interop as I want to control users to my system. The coverage, range, throughput has been totally smoke to date. I am still waiting for 70 Mbps at 70 miles PTMP. We don't roam, allow roaming or want to allow roaming. We don't operate in areas where ITU is a concern. Our systems are very automated I just don't see how any purported WiMax system is better in any way for my Canopy based WISP. - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 10:17 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP Here is a list of some of what makes WiMax better than most other WISP solutions out there: -Engineered for outdoor broadband wireless delivery -Strict Interoperability Requirement between all vendors -Standardized platform which has been accepted globally -Support for multiple antenna ie. MIMO, AAS, Diversity, etc. which delivers increased operational coverage area above antything else in the WISP industry. -Roaming and national footprint options across unlicensed and licensed networks -ITU Recognized standard -Mobility options -System automation options This is a partial list. What is most important to remember is that the rest of the world has already built on this standard. I am not suggesting anything radical in saying we need to get up to speed with the rest of the world on what has been accepted as the standard for broadband delivery over wireless in 3.4 thru 3.8 GHz bandspace. Scriv On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is your opinion about the greatness of WiMax based upon? - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 7:19 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP I believe that WiMax is great... greater than equipment we currently use. I just don't use it at this time because of the cost. I also don't buy into a lot of the hype people (press, manufacturers, vendors, others) are pushing. I had a project that required 10 meg of synchronous, committed bandwidth per customer. I was told (by more than one group) because of the WiMax magic, I could put 2 - 3 customers on equipment capable of 23 megs. Sorry, you simply cannot put 10 pounds of shit in a 5 pound box, no matter the magic. Other than Mikrotik, only the AN-80i would have been worth it. I do appreciate the FCC's requirement of equipment getting along with dissimilar equipment. Who knows when we'll have another Canopy or Tsunami introduced that just doesn't play well with others. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 11:38 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP I do not think we should build our networks for the sole purpose of suckering, err, selling to someone else. I do believe that I want anything I build to have value in the event I do sell. That is not suckering anyone. Why not build something that holds value or appreciates in value? I know a future plan for WISPs to build WiMax networks in 3.65 would result in better networks, better valuations for WISPs and better economies of scale. Leaning on 802.11 further is just not the plan we should be using for new bands and new opportunities like we have in 3650. We have a chance to build something greater than we have now. WiMax is what the rest of the world is already using in the 3.4 thru 3.8 GHz band. Do any of you think it is smarter for us to abandon the global scale afforded to us if we adopt WiMax in 3.65? I am surprised more of you are not speaking up and saying you agree with this philosophy. Dividing the camp on this will not help us as an industry. I would like to see this group, for once, accept that we need to do something together, as a group, for the common good. I think this is that opportunity. I see little reason for us to take any other course of action in 3.65 GHz. WISPs need to do something as a group to help our industry. WiMax in 3.65 is that logical step for us to work together and reach some scale and some value. This is not about suckering anyone or being stuck in a rut. This is a chance for us to move to the next level. It is almost embarrassing to me that we are actually behind the rest of the world here in the US when it comes to this band. WiMax is a serious platform with many advantages over anything else we have built and used. The light licensed opportunities in 3.65 are an incredible experiment that we need to show success in. If we choose WiMax and adopt this as the platform for 3.65 I believe we will advance our entire industry to a higher level of funding
Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP
Mot has been asking their users for opinions as to what they should do there. They were very interested in whether or not we thought it should be standards based. I told them that I wanted a closed proprietary system. - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 11:13 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP I am not trying to tell people that they should abandon what they have. I am simply trying to make the case for WiMax in 3.65 GHz space. I do not think that is in conflict with what you have deployed. Is Motorola planning to deploy a system for 3.65 GHz? I have not heard anything about that. Scriv On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Canopy is outdoor. I don't want interop as I want to control users to my system. The coverage, range, throughput has been totally smoke to date. I am still waiting for 70 Mbps at 70 miles PTMP. We don't roam, allow roaming or want to allow roaming. We don't operate in areas where ITU is a concern. Our systems are very automated I just don't see how any purported WiMax system is better in any way for my Canopy based WISP. - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 10:17 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP Here is a list of some of what makes WiMax better than most other WISP solutions out there: -Engineered for outdoor broadband wireless delivery -Strict Interoperability Requirement between all vendors -Standardized platform which has been accepted globally -Support for multiple antenna ie. MIMO, AAS, Diversity, etc. which delivers increased operational coverage area above antything else in the WISP industry. -Roaming and national footprint options across unlicensed and licensed networks -ITU Recognized standard -Mobility options -System automation options This is a partial list. What is most important to remember is that the rest of the world has already built on this standard. I am not suggesting anything radical in saying we need to get up to speed with the rest of the world on what has been accepted as the standard for broadband delivery over wireless in 3.4 thru 3.8 GHz bandspace. Scriv On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is your opinion about the greatness of WiMax based upon? - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 7:19 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP I believe that WiMax is great... greater than equipment we currently use. I just don't use it at this time because of the cost. I also don't buy into a lot of the hype people (press, manufacturers, vendors, others) are pushing. I had a project that required 10 meg of synchronous, committed bandwidth per customer. I was told (by more than one group) because of the WiMax magic, I could put 2 - 3 customers on equipment capable of 23 megs. Sorry, you simply cannot put 10 pounds of shit in a 5 pound box, no matter the magic. Other than Mikrotik, only the AN-80i would have been worth it. I do appreciate the FCC's requirement of equipment getting along with dissimilar equipment. Who knows when we'll have another Canopy or Tsunami introduced that just doesn't play well with others. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 11:38 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP I do not think we should build our networks for the sole purpose of suckering, err, selling to someone else. I do believe that I want anything I build to have value in the event I do sell. That is not suckering anyone. Why not build something that holds value or appreciates in value? I know a future plan for WISPs to build WiMax networks in 3.65 would result in better networks, better valuations for WISPs and better economies of scale. Leaning on 802.11 further is just not the plan we should be using for new bands and new opportunities like we have in 3650. We have a chance to build something greater than we have now. WiMax is what the rest of the world is already using in the 3.4 thru 3.8 GHz band. Do any of you think it is smarter for us to abandon the global scale afforded to us if we adopt WiMax in 3.65? I am surprised more of you are not speaking up and saying you agree with this philosophy. Dividing the camp on this will not help us as an industry. I would like to see this group, for once, accept that we need to do something together, as a group, for the common good. I think
Re: [WISPA] solar equipment / partners?
Do you go solar where there is commercial power? - Original Message - From: Gino Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 12:22 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] solar equipment / partners? You are lucky we are paying about $.30 gino -Original Message- From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 1:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] solar equipment / partners? I have been doing solar powered radio sites for 25 years. I will never do one where commercial power is available. Not sure how folks buying panels at $5/watt can think this is a good deal compared with 7 cents per 1000 watts. - Original Message - From: Rogelio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Charles N Wyble [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 10:14 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] solar equipment / partners? Charles N Wyble wrote: We are looking to deploy several hundred radios as well for a large scale private network, and want it to be resilient as possible. This includes power and back haul connectivity. Solar looks to be a good backup power option, and with the price of everything increasing perhaps a good primary option? Yeah, apparently people have been doing the math on the power required and the amount saved, and apparently it's significant. Not sure how they can know this without looking at specific equipment, but apparently it's worth seriously looking into, in their opinion. 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] solar equipment / partners?
Just curious, what all do you power at home with electricity? I have to have lights, electronics and the fridge. But for almost everything else I use gas (or solar hot water and some solar space heating). - Original Message - From: Gino Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 12:32 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] solar equipment / partners? Not at this moment.just an example of how different can be the power cost... I just paid $850 for my home electric bill this month And i am actively looking for options gino -Original Message- From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 2:28 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] solar equipment / partners? Do you go solar where there is commercial power? - Original Message - From: Gino Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 12:22 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] solar equipment / partners? You are lucky we are paying about $.30 gino -Original Message- From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 1:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] solar equipment / partners? I have been doing solar powered radio sites for 25 years. I will never do one where commercial power is available. Not sure how folks buying panels at $5/watt can think this is a good deal compared with 7 cents per 1000 watts. - Original Message - From: Rogelio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Charles N Wyble [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 10:14 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] solar equipment / partners? Charles N Wyble wrote: We are looking to deploy several hundred radios as well for a large scale private network, and want it to be resilient as possible. This includes power and back haul connectivity. Solar looks to be a good backup power option, and with the price of everything increasing perhaps a good primary option? Yeah, apparently people have been doing the math on the power required and the amount saved, and apparently it's significant. Not sure how they can know this without looking at specific equipment, but apparently it's worth seriously looking into, in their opinion. 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/ 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] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP
There was lots of discussions as to what we wanted to see on the roadmap. They seemed to be surprised that several of the more vocal attendees didn't care about a standards based (WiMax) solution. 3X backwards compatible vs the new (faster, non backward compatible) generation of canopy was a hot discussion. That followed by 3.65 ptmp technology. - Original Message - From: Gino Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 12:35 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP What was their feedback? I could only see canopy 400 working on this bandthey could also port their wimax solution but thats a different price range gino -Original Message- From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 1:57 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP Mot has been asking their users for opinions as to what they should do there. They were very interested in whether or not we thought it should be standards based. I told them that I wanted a closed proprietary system. - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 11:13 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP I am not trying to tell people that they should abandon what they have. I am simply trying to make the case for WiMax in 3.65 GHz space. I do not think that is in conflict with what you have deployed. Is Motorola planning to deploy a system for 3.65 GHz? I have not heard anything about that. Scriv On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Canopy is outdoor. I don't want interop as I want to control users to my system. The coverage, range, throughput has been totally smoke to date. I am still waiting for 70 Mbps at 70 miles PTMP. We don't roam, allow roaming or want to allow roaming. We don't operate in areas where ITU is a concern. Our systems are very automated I just don't see how any purported WiMax system is better in any way for my Canopy based WISP. - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 10:17 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP Here is a list of some of what makes WiMax better than most other WISP solutions out there: -Engineered for outdoor broadband wireless delivery -Strict Interoperability Requirement between all vendors -Standardized platform which has been accepted globally -Support for multiple antenna ie. MIMO, AAS, Diversity, etc. which delivers increased operational coverage area above antything else in the WISP industry. -Roaming and national footprint options across unlicensed and licensed networks -ITU Recognized standard -Mobility options -System automation options This is a partial list. What is most important to remember is that the rest of the world has already built on this standard. I am not suggesting anything radical in saying we need to get up to speed with the rest of the world on what has been accepted as the standard for broadband delivery over wireless in 3.4 thru 3.8 GHz bandspace. Scriv On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is your opinion about the greatness of WiMax based upon? - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 7:19 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP I believe that WiMax is great... greater than equipment we currently use. I just don't use it at this time because of the cost. I also don't buy into a lot of the hype people (press, manufacturers, vendors, others) are pushing. I had a project that required 10 meg of synchronous, committed bandwidth per customer. I was told (by more than one group) because of the WiMax magic, I could put 2 - 3 customers on equipment capable of 23 megs. Sorry, you simply cannot put 10 pounds of shit in a 5 pound box, no matter the magic. Other than Mikrotik, only the AN-80i would have been worth it. I do appreciate the FCC's requirement of equipment getting along with dissimilar equipment. Who knows when we'll have another Canopy or Tsunami introduced that just doesn't play well with others. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 11:38 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP I do not think we should build our networks for the sole purpose of suckering, err, selling to someone else. I do believe that I want anything I build to have value in the event I do
Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP
Then I guess the precludes any participation in any mutual fund or almost any type of broker investments. Oh well... - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 8:56 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP It does mine. Inflating the price of a needed commodity - that is, increasing it with no added value - is unethical, in my estimation. insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 4:41 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP Yeahbut, recognizing an arbitrage opportunity does not trigger my ethical shutdown circuit. - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 5:33 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP A lot of times, flipping a house is nothing more than putting on a fresh coat of paint. 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] solar equipment / partners?
I sure hope they make it. Lots of companies have made similar statements over the years, but the entry of Intel into the PV cell business makes me think that nothing truly revolutionary is coming soon. Intel is going to be making conventional polycrystalline cells. Nothing new there. - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 8:38 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] solar equipment / partners? A company to keep your eyes on is Nanosolar. http://www.nanosolar.com/ I believe once production ramps up, the panels will be $1/watt. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 12:05 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] solar equipment / partners? I have been doing solar powered radio sites for 25 years. I will never do one where commercial power is available. Not sure how folks buying panels at $5/watt can think this is a good deal compared with 7 cents per 1000 watts. - Original Message - From: Rogelio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Charles N Wyble [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 10:14 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] solar equipment / partners? Charles N Wyble wrote: We are looking to deploy several hundred radios as well for a large scale private network, and want it to be resilient as possible. This includes power and back haul connectivity. Solar looks to be a good backup power option, and with the price of everything increasing perhaps a good primary option? Yeah, apparently people have been doing the math on the power required and the amount saved, and apparently it's significant. Not sure how they can know this without looking at specific equipment, but apparently it's worth seriously looking into, in their opinion. 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] solar equipment / partners?
I read almost every page of their website as well as attempted to view the videos. (some require a password) Seems like this is for real. That will be a wonderful thing if it truly scales and his the cost target. 14.6% efficiency is not too bad for thin films. - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 8:38 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] solar equipment / partners? A company to keep your eyes on is Nanosolar. http://www.nanosolar.com/ I believe once production ramps up, the panels will be $1/watt. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 12:05 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] solar equipment / partners? I have been doing solar powered radio sites for 25 years. I will never do one where commercial power is available. Not sure how folks buying panels at $5/watt can think this is a good deal compared with 7 cents per 1000 watts. - Original Message - From: Rogelio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Charles N Wyble [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 10:14 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] solar equipment / partners? Charles N Wyble wrote: We are looking to deploy several hundred radios as well for a large scale private network, and want it to be resilient as possible. This includes power and back haul connectivity. Solar looks to be a good backup power option, and with the price of everything increasing perhaps a good primary option? Yeah, apparently people have been doing the math on the power required and the amount saved, and apparently it's significant. Not sure how they can know this without looking at specific equipment, but apparently it's worth seriously looking into, in their opinion. 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] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP
If you buy a security, the prices rises, you sell the security, you make money. You have not added anything of value to the world. Irrespective of the nature of the company behind the security. Even if you are investing in a company that rescues slave labor children from sweatshops, if it is traded on an open exchange, the money you make or lost on the trade does not really help the company. The original point was revolving around adding value. A mutual fund that includes in its portfolio a stock of a car company making electrical vehicles does not make that investment any more of a value added proposition than investing in the stock of a company that sets up payday loan stores. The securities trading of a companies stock does little for a company past the initial IPO. Unless you are an IPO buyer, all securities are essentially tulip bulbs in holland in the 1637. But getting back to the tangent that has nothing to do with WISPA or 3.65, muddyfrog said that he does not believe in investments where there is no added value. I proffered that precludes securities trading. With the exception of IPOs and angel investment (I have done and continue to do both) securities trading adds no value and is only a form of regulated gambling. I have no problem with it. But one could extrapolate that muddyfrog logically should. - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 11:49 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP Not really; it depends on what the mutual fund chooses to invest in. If the mutual fund invests in businesses that makes greenhouse-gas-reducing electric vehicles for example, that might be very acceptable (ethical) to some. On the other hand, investing in a mutual fund that invests in finance companies that specialize in misleading homeowners into taking out home loans that result in draining the existing equity out of the home then throwing the homeowner out might be considered not-acceptable (unethical) by others. Chuck McCown - 3 wrote: Then I guess the precludes any participation in any mutual fund or almost any type of broker investments. Oh well... - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 8:56 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP It does mine. Inflating the price of a needed commodity - that is, increasing it with no added value - is unethical, in my estimation. insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 4:41 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP Yeahbut, recognizing an arbitrage opportunity does not trigger my ethical shutdown circuit. - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 5:33 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP A lot of times, flipping a house is nothing more than putting on a fresh coat of paint. snip -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Cisco Press Author - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs Vendor-Neutral Wireless Design-Training-Troubleshooting-Consulting FCC License # PG-12-25133 Profile http://www.linkedin.com/in/jackunger Phone 818-227-4220 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP
N.B., I never used the word commodity. However, the commodity exchange and the Chicago Board of Trade do trade in commodities without adding any value. You say that a marketplace for the exchange of commodity securities are OK as long as options and derivatives are excluded? How about just buying up a whole bunch of heating oil on the commodity exchange and selling it in the winter when prices rise. Is that OK? Just trying to bracket the setting of your ethic-o-meter. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 12:16 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP How so? How does buying ownership in a publicly owned entity inflate the c ost of a needed commodity? obviously, there must be a marketplace to buy and sell commodities... And those who sell, to those who buy, for purposes of buying and selling commodities for use seems perfectly legitemate to me. On the other hand, we have people who borrow money, buy options to tie up large amounts of commodities, hoping to create a shortage and inflate the price. How you confuse this with normal buy/sell of real things and/or ownership of entities, I am not sure. insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 9:18 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP Then I guess the precludes any participation in any mutual fund or almost any type of broker investments. Oh well... - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 8:56 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP It does mine. Inflating the price of a needed commodity - that is, increasing it with no added value - is unethical, in my estimation. insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 4:41 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP Yeahbut, recognizing an arbitrage opportunity does not trigger my ethical shutdown circuit. - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 5:33 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP A lot of times, flipping a house is nothing more than putting on a fresh coat of paint. 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] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP
OK, this thread must die. But if you need heating oil in the winter, I will be happy to sell you some ;-) (or corn or wheat or sugar or pork bellies) - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 12:35 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP If you have the money to buy - pay for in full - oil and wait until winter, then what business is it of ours? Again, we're discussing OWNERSHIP here, which is where I drew my line. As for this action, a lot of farmers and homeowners fill their heating oil tanks at opportune times. I fail to understand your point. You risk the very things we all risk... that it will go up or down in price by winter. Again, none of this has anything to do with my original statement about building businesses solely for the purpose of selling it, nor about speculators who use leveraged debt to drive up the price of consumer commodities for no added value. insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 11:22 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP N.B., I never used the word commodity. However, the commodity exchange and the Chicago Board of Trade do trade in commodities without adding any value. You say that a marketplace for the exchange of commodity securities are OK as long as options and derivatives are excluded? How about just buying up a whole bunch of heating oil on the commodity exchange and selling it in the winter when prices rise. Is that OK? Just trying to bracket the setting of your ethic-o-meter. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 12:16 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP How so? How does buying ownership in a publicly owned entity inflate the c ost of a needed commodity? obviously, there must be a marketplace to buy and sell commodities... And those who sell, to those who buy, for purposes of buying and selling commodities for use seems perfectly legitemate to me. On the other hand, we have people who borrow money, buy options to tie up large amounts of commodities, hoping to create a shortage and inflate the price. How you confuse this with normal buy/sell of real things and/or ownership of entities, I am not sure. insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 9:18 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP Then I guess the precludes any participation in any mutual fund or almost any type of broker investments. Oh well... - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 8:56 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP It does mine. Inflating the price of a needed commodity - that is, increasing it with no added value - is unethical, in my estimation. insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 4:41 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP Yeahbut, recognizing an arbitrage opportunity does not trigger my ethical shutdown circuit. - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 5:33 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP A lot of times, flipping a house is nothing more than putting on a fresh coat of paint. 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] Wall Bracket
Steel strap iron or Unistrut. Unistrut has lots of brackets and fasteners but would not look as nice IMHO as a custom made strap steel unit. You could always buy the 36 incher and have someone extend it. Yes, it will lose some galvanizing but gray/silver paint will make up for the loss. - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 1:23 PM Subject: [WISPA] Wall Bracket I have a TV tower (don't know the make and model, but it looks similar to a Rohn 20 or 25) that I feel needs a wall bracket (it shakes more at the top than any other tower I've been on). The tower is 39 and some change inches away, but I've only seen brackets for up to 36 away. Ideas? -- 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] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz
Have you actually deployed WiMax @ 3.65 and have experienced this first hand? Where can I purchase sub $350 CPE on 3.65 today? This looks more like a vendor's ad than a WISP reporting real world experiences. Lots of dangling comparatives. - Original Message - From: jeffrey thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 12:45 PM Subject: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz Since everyone was talking about wimax, thought I would throw my 3 cents in :) Benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz 1. Spectral efficiency ( 4.85 gross bp/hz ) On a six sector configuration with only 25mhz of spectrum, you can effectively deliver approx 20mb per sector or 120 mb / per pop, 240 mb when all 50 mhz is supported. Support for thousands of subscribers is possible off the same BSU. 2. multiple vendor support ( currently you have Redline, Aperto, Airspan, Alvarion, all with FCC approved equipment ) 3. Better RF performance ( even with siso systems ) 4. NLOS performance ( OFDM+OFDMA = More difficult shots obtain link ) 5. Better QOS support, and service flows ( UGS, NRTPS, ETC can be ) 6. Greater scalablity ( Single sector can support hundreds of subscribers, our platform supports 30,000 pps ) 7. Support for multiline VOIP out of box ( UGS + 30K PPS ) 8. Sub 350 cpe shipping today ( in 100 packs, less with frame order commitments putting your cost sub 300 ) 9. Carrier class systems vs Wisp class ( True 99.999% uptime solutions available for base station equipment, reducing downtime and truck rolls ) 10. Carrier class network management systems that simplify provisioning and management of subscribers and base stations. Even if you don't choose aperto, there are many options in the market to choose from. Talk to your local reseller about your options, Such as Wireless Connections and Wirelessguys carry many products to choose from. Best Regards, Jeff Booher Aperto Networks, Inc Channel Manager, North America www.apertonet.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 24/7: 206-455-4950 On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 10:14:44 -0500, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Increased spectral efficiency Advanced antenna support (the only benefit I understand is increased signal margin) Higher likelihood of multiple vendors vs. many previous BWA technologies, though not now Eventual lower CPE cost, though not now -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 8:55 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP What is your opinion about the greatness of WiMax based upon? - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 7:19 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP I believe that WiMax is great... greater than equipment we currently use. I just don't use it at this time because of the cost. I also don't buy into a lot of the hype people (press, manufacturers, vendors, others) are pushing. I had a project that required 10 meg of synchronous, committed bandwidth per customer. I was told (by more than one group) because of the WiMax magic, I could put 2 - 3 customers on equipment capable of 23 megs. Sorry, you simply cannot put 10 pounds of shit in a 5 pound box, no matter the magic. Other than Mikrotik, only the AN-80i would have been worth it. I do appreciate the FCC's requirement of equipment getting along with dissimilar equipment. Who knows when we'll have another Canopy or Tsunami introduced that just doesn't play well with others. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 11:38 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP I do not think we should build our networks for the sole purpose of suckering, err, selling to someone else. I do believe that I want anything I build to have value in the event I do sell. That is not suckering anyone. Why not build something that holds value or appreciates in value? I know a future plan for WISPs to build WiMax networks in 3.65 would result in better networks, better valuations for WISPs and better economies of scale. Leaning on 802.11 further is just not the plan we should be using for new bands and new opportunities like we have in 3650. We have a chance to build something greater than we have now. WiMax is what the rest of the world is already using in the 3.4 thru 3.8 GHz band. Do any of you think it is smarter for us
Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz
I totally agree. I am planning to deploy 3.65 in this area and will be one of the first if not the first. If there is a plethora of real life experience with this band with the existing products, I am all ears. But so far, I don't know of any actual WiMax 802.16d or e equipment deployments in this band. Not saying it doesn't exist, just that I am ignorant of its existence. And for the NLOS prognostications, we have heard that all that before from others. Generally you hear stuff like that from sales folks who believe puffery to be a perfectly legit way to promote product. - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 7:53 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz Drew, Are you drawing your conclusions based on 3.65 deployments in other parts of the world? I ask because it's hard to imagine that there are already enough 3.65 deployments in the U.S. to draw all your conclusions. Also, physics is still physics. Even given advanced antenna systems, nLOS and NLOS performance at 3.65 is still going to be limited by hills and trees. No matter how advanced the APs and antenna systems, I find it very hard to believe that 3.65 is going to approach the performance of 900 MHz inside of (or on the other side of) a forested area. jack Drew Lentz wrote: I completely disagree with you on this topic. 3.65 makes a great play in a rural setting. I have spoken with many different groups who are capitalizing exactly on what benefits this frequency space offers in these environments. The price tags are not as high as you think, and the return on it is far greater than just how quickly your money comes back in. The ability to provide high bandwidth services in a space where you can control the QoS and give your end-users the ability (soon) to choose their own client device, at least to me, makes more sense than using a lightweight product like 900. As fas as battling terrain changes, look again at the nLOS and NLOS characteristics of 3.65 .. not to mention mobility and the self-install CPE. -d 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/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Cisco Press Author - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs Vendor-Neutral Wireless Design-Training-Troubleshooting-Consulting FCC License # PG-12-25133 Profile http://www.linkedin.com/in/jackunger Phone 818-227-4220 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz
Please give us regular updates. I need one PmP system to go 20 miles (LOS). Not sure Redline will do that at any speeds that are greater than Canopy. At 2-3 miles we get 4 Mbps through trees with Canopy. - Original Message - From: John McDowell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 8:05 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz We've got a Redline system with NLOS indoor mount at .75 miles. We did drive tests out to a mile NLOS, through trees, and got anywhere between 2-3Mbps at the lowest modulation. We plan to go live with the product this month... As soon as we get our routing situation fixed. On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 9:00 PM, Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I totally agree. I am planning to deploy 3.65 in this area and will be one of the first if not the first. If there is a plethora of real life experience with this band with the existing products, I am all ears. But so far, I don't know of any actual WiMax 802.16d or e equipment deployments in this band. Not saying it doesn't exist, just that I am ignorant of its existence. And for the NLOS prognostications, we have heard that all that before from others. Generally you hear stuff like that from sales folks who believe puffery to be a perfectly legit way to promote product. - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 7:53 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz Drew, Are you drawing your conclusions based on 3.65 deployments in other parts of the world? I ask because it's hard to imagine that there are already enough 3.65 deployments in the U.S. to draw all your conclusions. Also, physics is still physics. Even given advanced antenna systems, nLOS and NLOS performance at 3.65 is still going to be limited by hills and trees. No matter how advanced the APs and antenna systems, I find it very hard to believe that 3.65 is going to approach the performance of 900 MHz inside of (or on the other side of) a forested area. jack Drew Lentz wrote: I completely disagree with you on this topic. 3.65 makes a great play in a rural setting. I have spoken with many different groups who are capitalizing exactly on what benefits this frequency space offers in these environments. The price tags are not as high as you think, and the return on it is far greater than just how quickly your money comes back in. The ability to provide high bandwidth services in a space where you can control the QoS and give your end-users the ability (soon) to choose their own client device, at least to me, makes more sense than using a lightweight product like 900. As fas as battling terrain changes, look again at the nLOS and NLOS characteristics of 3.65 .. not to mention mobility and the self-install CPE. -d 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/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Cisco Press Author - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs Vendor-Neutral Wireless Design-Training-Troubleshooting-Consulting FCC License # PG-12-25133 Profile http://www.linkedin.com/in/jackunger Phone 818-227-4220 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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/ -- John M. McDowell Boonlink Communications 307 Grand Ave NW Fort Payne, AL 35967 256.844.9932 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.boonlink.com This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy, re-transmit, or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained
Re: [WISPA] Streamlined DC Powered System
Yes. What specifically are you needing to source. We built our own. - Original Message - From: John McDowell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Motorola Canopy User Group [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 4:45 AM Subject: [WISPA] Streamlined DC Powered System I want a streamlined DC Power System, at least 4 deep cycle batteries (that I can run to Wal-Mart and replace in a pinch), four or five 24 and 48 volt outputs, and the ability to monitor voltage across chargers, batteries and outputs so that I get an alert when some part of the system shuts off. This should power multiple Redlines, Canopy APs, and DC Imagestream router for at least two days. Does anyone have something for this? I have been using my own version of Lewis Bergmans Job Box, but I want more, better. -- John M. McDowell Boonlink Communications 307 Grand Ave NW Fort Payne, AL 35967 256.844.9932 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.boonlink.com This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy, re-transmit, or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and delete the message. E-mail communication is highly susceptible to spoofing, spamming, and other tampering, some of which may be harmful to your computer. If you are concerned about the authenticity of the message or the source, please contact the sender directly. 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] water in feed horn
And you are sure it is that end of the link that went bad? - Original Message - From: Kurt Fankhauser [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 1:51 PM Subject: [WISPA] water in feed horn Anyone ever have any water get into a pacwireless 5ghz grid feedhorn? Had a new site yesterday go through its first heavy rain and signal dropped to -90. Went through everything, replaced radio, pigtail, coax, and nothing helped. Sun came out and signal came back to -69. Will Pacwireless replace this feedhorn for warranty? Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.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] water in feed horn
No, they stay reflectors. But Yagis have a huge problem when coated with ice. -Original Message- From: Kurt Fankhauser [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 17:38:24 To: 'WISPA General List'wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] water in feed horn Don't grids stop working when they coat up with ice? Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Larsen - Lists Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 4:30 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] water in feed horn Check the feedhorn for cracks. We have had a few PacWireless units (dishes and grids) that were damaged by hail or dropping ice and developed hairline cracks that caused them to stop working in wet weather. Matt Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kurt Fankhauser wrote: Anyone ever have any water get into a pacwireless 5ghz grid feedhorn? Had a new site yesterday go through its first heavy rain and signal dropped to -90. Went through everything, replaced radio, pigtail, coax, and nothing helped. Sun came out and signal came back to -69. Will Pacwireless replace this feedhorn for warranty? Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.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/ 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] water in feed horn
Depends on the design. Most of the lower cost WISP antennas are fed with a slotted dipole covered by a plastic cover. Those should be OK. - Original Message - From: Kurt Fankhauser [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 8:14 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] water in feed horn What if the feedhorn is coated with ice? Seems to me that whenever we get ice my 24db 2.4 grids stop working on the longer links. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3 Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 7:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] water in feed horn No, they stay reflectors. But Yagis have a huge problem when coated with ice. -Original Message- From: Kurt Fankhauser [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 17:38:24 To: 'WISPA General List'wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] water in feed horn Don't grids stop working when they coat up with ice? Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Larsen - Lists Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 4:30 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] water in feed horn Check the feedhorn for cracks. We have had a few PacWireless units (dishes and grids) that were damaged by hail or dropping ice and developed hairline cracks that caused them to stop working in wet weather. Matt Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kurt Fankhauser wrote: Anyone ever have any water get into a pacwireless 5ghz grid feedhorn? Had a new site yesterday go through its first heavy rain and signal dropped to -90. Went through everything, replaced radio, pigtail, coax, and nothing helped. Sun came out and signal came back to -69. Will Pacwireless replace this feedhorn for warranty? Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.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/ 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] Dragonwave antenna pattern for RM
Generally speaking, when the FCC specifies antennas they are more interested in the pattern than the gain. Specifically, they have a beamwidth and sidelobe suppression mask that they insist upon. This is always true with satellite uplink dishes. Not totally familiar with the point to point fixed microwave requirements but I would suspect this to be the case there as well. For parabolic reflectors, gain=directivity*efficiency or directivity (beamwidth) = gain/efficiency. Most parabolics are about 50-60% efficient. So you can treat that as a constant. - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 12:29 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dragonwave antenna pattern for RM A couple notes... Because this is a Dragonwave thread, I'd recommend that you contact CharlesWu at cticonnect.com, I've been very pleased with his assistance in the past on Licensed. As for 11ghz dish size... The requirements are not size, it is gain characteristics of the dish. In most cases only a 4 ft dish demonstrated those characteristics. There is a 2.5ft dish on the market that DOES meet the requirements to be equivellent of a typical 4ft dish. If you need this 2.5ft dish, it will also effect your selection of gear, as some manufactyurers require use of a specific dish, based on the mounting and waveguide methods to be compatible. Take note that it is now legal to use smaller dishes, based on recent lobbying and FCC decission, but it is on a secondary basis that gives priority to the users of larger 4ft dishes. If you deploy smaller than the 2.5ft full spec'd dish, you should fully inform your self with exactly what that means, as far as rights you have under the license. With that said, we have been very pleased with our Trango 18Ghz Licensed gear. They are shipping 11Ghz stuff now also, and definately worth a look, if you have not yet made a purchasing decission. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jonathan Auer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 11:46 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dragonwave antenna pattern for RM I did not know that. Can anyone suggest a good FAQ/Intro resource for someone just getting into licensed backhauls? Or a collection of links so I can RTFM? On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Doesn't 11Ghz have a 4' minimum or was that changed? Last rumor I heard was you might be able to get a 3' or possibly even a 2' approved for 11GHz, but if it becomes a problem then you'll be forced to change to an antenna that doesn't cause a problem with a tighter pattern...like 4'. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 11:26 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dragonwave antenna pattern for RM Regs are 6' minimum high performance dish at 6 GHz unless something changed recently. At 11 Ghz you should be able to get 99.99 and use the 5 Ghz to back it up Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Jonathan Auer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:17:07 To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dragonwave antenna pattern for RM Not really. The biggest I can use are 3' On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:14 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you have facilities to mount 6' antennas at any real height?? You may be able to get away with 11 GHz... Bob Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Jonathan Auer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:57:06 To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Dragonwave antenna pattern for RM Does anyone have a Radio Mobile antenna pattern for the Dragonwave Horizon Compact? Is there a better tool/method for figuring out if the 6+Ghz licensed freqs are appropriate for a link? I could be barking up the wrong tree with this... Are the higher freq licensed links appropriate for ~15-25 mile links? At the moment I'm using PTP600s and AN-50es to do the job but I can't get the speed I'd like because of noise floor. 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
Re: [WISPA] Dragonwave antenna pattern for RM
Thanks for pointing that out. In my mind that was what I was attempting to say. I guess I failed to take it to completion. I was trying to make the point that gain ~~ size~~ beamwidth but only in the broad general case. The FCC is not really caring about gain or size(in these cases); but since they all three are usually proportional many workers in the field use size as the rule of thumb. A very well designed high performance parabolic reflector can have the same sidelobe characteristics as a larger reflector. - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 12:48 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dragonwave antenna pattern for RM Chuck, Yes, that is right, it is the radiation characteristics that are specified, that must be met. My point being size is not one of the criteria listed required to be met. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband 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] Report: FCC to Punish Comcast Over Web Blocking
Amen (Carterphone, had not thought bout that for a while) - Original Message - From: Jonathan Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 6:54 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Report: FCC to Punish Comcast Over Web Blocking Without traffic management standards and support, our roads would be a bloodbath. Without the FCC you wouldn't have an open frequency for anything. As a Ham Radio operator for over 50 years, I appreciate the regulations that protected the nursery for some of our greatest electronic developments. With the FCC bending to some political shenanigans we do have some less-than-fair bias toward (ahem) a segment of the telecommunications industry. Granted. And, on the whole...I'm not sure I agree with the remainder of W.C. Fields' gravestone (although, they seem to be learning). But, we have a new and fertile environment for exploitation and interference. If a major broadband provider made the sources of media downloads (iTunes, etc.) either pay or suffer intolerable sluggishness (as opposed to the provider's own fast-as-hell pay-for-songs/movies site) then the provider is using their pipe to an unfair advantage. That's Net Neutrality as being presented to the FCC and Congress. Broadband providers, WISPA members included, are becoming a necessary utility. Here in San Antonio, the rumor was that (ex-pres.)Ed Whitacre not only didn't use computers but thought of e-mail as stupid. He was reportedly the source of the philosophy that ATT owned the transport and that GOOGLE was making BILLIONS off the connection and ATT wasn't participating. That's a perfectly natural perspective for an old timer with the pre-CarterPhone mentality. As a side note, however, I don't know where he was during the 1-900 fiasco in the '90s. However, we need to work together to present the positive benefits that we bring to the population, like the TVA. You can't argue with motherhood and virtue and that's what the message is. Flailing at boogiemen isn't a help. The fact that WISPA helps bring the bottom-of-the-list USA to the top of broadband users' survey is! . . . J o n a t h a n -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3 Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 7:13 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Report: FCC to Punish Comcast Over Web Blocking Hyperbole is not helpful to discourse. If you want no FCC go to some other country. Are you really the anarchist you come across as? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 5:06 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Report: FCC to Punish Comcast Over Web Blocking insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: Frank Muto [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 9:31 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Report: FCC to Punish Comcast Over Web Blocking Does the FCC have jurisdiction over all the bit-content passing on the Internet network or control of a providers management of network resources? Didn't you know the FCC was holy, and that objecting to anything they want is political and must be never spoken of here? /extreme sarcasm We, as an industry, should have been screaming at the top of our lungs, writing objections to EVERYTHING the FCC has tried to demand from us or take from us from the day WISPA was a legal entity, till now. And I mean EVERY mandate of any kind. But no, that's playing politics. When they issue decrees that turn your balance sheet negative and bankrupt you, will it still be political to object? -- -- 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] Topic change - Trade Association Was:Report:FCCtoPunishComcast Over Web Blocking
We have had the CALEA pain in the telco side for a decade. Believe me, it was much more expensive to become compliant if you were a LEC. Fact of the matter is that the internet is becoming the defacto alternate PSTN network and when you are a public utility you become beholden to the public you serve and the greater good. If a bad guy is hiding behind your network, being a good corporate citizen of this nation, it is your duty to help law enforcement do their job. Telcos did not like CALEA any more than the ISPs. Actually, the FBI and CALEA vendors are the only ones that liked CALEA. An analogy would be, if we discovered a way to transport water over the internet, and people started using IP water than the city water lines, don't you think that the health department ought to then become interested in the quality of the water you sell? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 2:04 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Topic change - Trade Association Was: Report:FCCtoPunishComcast Over Web Blocking insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: Frank Muto [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 9:06 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Topic change - Trade Association Was: Report: FCCtoPunishComcast Over Web Blocking You don't get it. CALEA was a good thing for WISPA and its members. No, of course I don't get it. This has got to be one of the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my life. I can find NO benefit to it of ANY kind. Nor has anyone I know of explained a single benefit, ever. It is a mandate on how a network must function, a limitation to equipment, software, topology, and redundancy, and an absurd notion in the first place. It is a direct requirement to dumb-down and overbuild bandwidth, with NO return of ANY kind, financial or otherwise. A good thing? Obviously, you're in the camp that expecting to get money ripped out of someone else's pockets and headed your way. Or, just try to explain it. Nobody has till now. They make the statement, but the logic used is an insult to our intelligence. You need to understand that you pick the battles you feel you can win. WISPA has gained a good amount of respect from the FCC, but this is only one of many battle fronts WISP's are up against. Gained respect? Please. This is imaginary nonsense. We're forgotten faster than styrofoam cup in a hurricane. We haven't got the millions to bribe them with, so there is no amount of positive influence we can have. The FIGHT for US battle cry you comment on takes money, time and a good amount off leg work to make things work. No kidding. I agree entirely. But when people start the comments like CALEA is good for us, whatever agenda they have in mind is NOT the well being of WISP's, but some kind of other agenda. You are dealing with a bureau that has many different levels of staffing, it can take weeks to know who to talk to, when and if they will talk to you, will it be ex-parte or not, etc, etc, etc. Like any other organization. Understand that the RBOCs and other companies are clamoring for the eyes and ears of those a the FCC, as WISPs need to get to.The fight is not only on the federal level, but also at the state and local levels as well. I'm still not sure exactly what your point is here. I understand the need to talk to all levels of government, but if we're going to take the mindset that all mandates and rules are Holy and Untouchable, then what is the point? 95% of what WISPA should be doing should be DEFENSIVE from an overreaching government agency of some kind. And it seems the present leadership has absolutely NO interest in defense at all, just playing looky, I got to talk to the Holy Ones in DC game, some kind of hat in hand subservence... 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] Topic change - Trade AssociationWas:Report:FCCtoPunishComcast Over Web Blocking
Let us know when that coffin is nailed shut. I am sure there will be a wisp ready to step up and take over your customers. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] No, it is just one more nail in our coffin, removing what I consider to be the single greatest advantage to using wireless WAN's. 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] Topic change - Trade AssociationWas:Report:FCCtoPunishComcast Over Web Blocking
w00t - Original Message - From: Forrest W Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 6:50 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Topic change - Trade AssociationWas:Report:FCCtoPunishComcast Over Web Blocking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No matter how many times you try to change the subject to you need to help law enforcment, which has NEVER been the issue, it still fails to address the fact that no properly designed and operating wireless network can be CALEA compliant. Explain how your network is designed such that you can't go to an AP site and insert a packet sniffer and gather all of the internet traffic for a specific customer attached to that AP - excluding traffic between two customers on the same AP. That is all that is required for CALEA compliance, thanks to WISPA. -forrest 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] Topic change - Trade AssociationWas:Report: FCCtoPunishComcast Over Web Blocking
For telcos, that assistance was in the form of CALEA complaint software upgrades for a very few brands of switches. If you were Nortel you were OK. I think the same thing with GTE but the switches we had did not have an FBI supplied software load so we got zero assistance for CALEA. - Original Message - From: Frank Muto [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 7:04 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Topic change - Trade AssociationWas:Report: FCCtoPunishComcast Over Web Blocking Since when is the discussion about CALEA been about whether it is good? Are you even in the same thread? The key take away from WISPA's involvement was a useable standard that LEA can work with, as each WISP can then provide the LEA with the information as is available within their network, as provided for within the statue of CALEA. The wire-line side, e.g., telcos, dealt with CALEA on a different level because of the amount of information readily available through standards already in existence and others made available since 1994 and updated again in August of 1999 for cellular and personal communications services. Unfortunately the telcos, i.e., telecommunications carriers were provided with greater assistance in their efforts to become compliant, where as the WISP's and VOIP providers were not afforded the same. Compliance with CALEA is available in 3 ways, 1. A service provider may develop its own compliance solution for its unique network, e.g, a WISP. 2. may purchase a compliance solution from vendors, or 3. purchase a compliance solution from a trusted third party, (TTP). What WISPA did was developed a compliance standard that LEA can work with, as an industry it is responsible for setting CALEA standards, pursuant to the statues of CALEA. Not to rehash the whole CALEA ordeal, which certainly was the case, this is just one example of how WISPA got involved and took on the initiative to do something about it, with or without your help. IMO, CALEA was the most important issue to deal with at the time and it got done. Frank - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 8:19 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Topic change - Trade Association Was:Report: FCCtoPunishComcast Over Web Blocking Forrest, the notion that some networks can't be sniffed was certainly given some time back when and somewhat addressed - although more along the lines of why on earth would you NOT have a single point of failure network?, as if that's a good thing. I'd like to note that according to recent commentary by WISPA leadership, you WILL either fully comply... Or else. That was only a temporary stop-gap, and you were expected to make your system fully compliant over time. BTW, where's the This network topology cannot be made compliant option on the filing you're required to do? Oh, wait, no such LEGAL provision exists for reporting purposes. Again, you have not made the case that CALEA is good in any way. insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: Forrest W Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 11:52 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Topic change - Trade Association Was: Report: FCCtoPunishComcast Over Web Blocking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, in relation to a previous statement about CALEA being good for WISPA: I can find NO benefit to it of ANY kind. Nor has anyone I know of explained a single benefit, ever. It is a mandate on how a network must function, a limitation to equipment, software, topology, and redundancy, and an absurd notion in the first place. It is a direct requirement to dumb-down and overbuild bandwidth, with NO return of ANY kind, financial or otherwise. From my perspective, almost everyone in the WISP industry got broadsided by the whole CALEA thing... But by the time everyone was aware of the requirements, it was too late to do anything meaningful as far as the rules themselves. What WISPA did was diffuse a potentially very bad and very expensive situation for WISP's. In short, the standards which WISPA developed and got approved basically says that you have to be able to packet sniff the data and provide it to the LEA. One actual statement in the APPROVED standard says: In unusual cases it may be impossible to perform one or more of these functions. The WISP is expected to make a best effort attempt to satisfy these requirements. It doesn't say you have to redesign your network. It doesn't say you have to dumb down a network. It doesn't say you have to overbuild bandwidth. Go ahead read the standard.. and realize that the ability to comply with this very easy to comply with standard is your safe harbor all thanks to the hard work provided by WISPA. You can
Re: [WISPA] Dragonwave antenna pattern for RM
Could you please elaborate about a Class B? This is new to me. - Original Message - From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 12:14 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dragonwave antenna pattern for RM Actually...if you're willing to accept Class B status under Part 101, you can even get a 2' in 11 GHz NOTE: Class B is still MILES ahead of anything unlicensed -Charles --- WiNOG Wireless Roadshows Coming to a City Near You http://www.winog.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Brownson Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 12:31 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dragonwave antenna pattern for RM Correct. Normally 4 ft is the standard. But in most areas of the country you can request an exception and go down to a 2.5 ft. It has something to do with locations near certain military installations. Mike B On 7/10/08 10:42 AM, 3-dB Networks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2.5' Minimum on 11GHz Daniel White -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 10:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dragonwave antenna pattern for RM Doesn't 11Ghz have a 4' minimum or was that changed? Last rumor I heard was you might be able to get a 3' or possibly even a 2' approved for 11GHz, but if it becomes a problem then you'll be forced to change to an antenna that doesn't cause a problem with a tighter pattern...like 4'. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 11:26 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dragonwave antenna pattern for RM Regs are 6' minimum high performance dish at 6 GHz unless something changed recently. At 11 Ghz you should be able to get 99.99 and use the 5 Ghz to back it up Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Jonathan Auer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:17:07 To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dragonwave antenna pattern for RM Not really. The biggest I can use are 3' On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:14 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you have facilities to mount 6' antennas at any real height?? You may be able to get away with 11 GHz... Bob Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Jonathan Auer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:57:06 To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Dragonwave antenna pattern for RM Does anyone have a Radio Mobile antenna pattern for the Dragonwave Horizon Compact? Is there a better tool/method for figuring out if the 6+Ghz licensed freqs are appropriate for a link? I could be barking up the wrong tree with this... Are the higher freq licensed links appropriate for ~15-25 mile links? At the moment I'm using PTP600s and AN-50es to do the job but I can't get the speed I'd like because of noise floor. 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/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/
Re: [WISPA] Form 477 NPRM Comments Due
Then I guess you do not want to evolve into a public utility. Too bad, as the rest of the WISP industry is becoming defacto public utility. You really need to become familiar with the principle of common carriage. The legal doctrine can be traced clear back to the Roman Empire. Personally I want the sanction and protection of the king, but in exchange I must be a good steward and must comply with some regulation. So, I will be granted a fiefdom and rogues will be assimilated. Who else serves around Milton Freewater? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 11:20 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Form 477 NPRM Comments Due This is an excerpt from a comment filed by a state representative from Kansas: As a state policy-maker attempting to develop incentives that will induce broadband providers (particularly the larger DSL and cable companies) to use multiple technologies to reach beyond city limits, FCC data providing greater specificity about which potential customers are adversely impacted by the digital divide and left without a viable option for service would be invaluable. That ought to turn your stomach into knots. Let me interpret it... We want detailed data, so we can help,cajole, coerce, or bribe the big guys into universal coverage. This is not a question of the FCC determining how broadband is being deployed. This is a matter of us being required to provide the data so that public money can be used to benefit the politically connected. My comments to the FCC... As a small businessman, one of the ways that we exist, is by being flexible and by offering services in an ad-hoc basis that larger, inflexible entities don't. Often, small businesses are purely based upon market need. Individuals find a need and fill it. And we do so in our own town, or neighborhood, or in the areas near where we live. One of the most critical efforts that small business people undertake, is to determine if there's a large enough market for what they want to do. Often, little funding is available for this, and they substitute days, weeks, or even months of time and personal effort instead of hiring research companies or marketing consultants, or buying the data outright. In the case of a wireless ISP, for instance, one of the most critical elements for success, is to map out an area, and then begin building out a network. Many such WISP's are one or two man operations, and start with minimal capital, usually enough to get started and operate in a limited area for a short period of time. Then, funding from operations then provides capital for expansion and improvement of infrastructure. During this phase of the life of a WISP, the financial situation is generally very fragile, and a loss of markets to move into will generally cause business failure. If WISP's are required to do even MORE work, such as finding census borders and maintaining massive and detailed databases of location etc, and the purpose of that work is to give free assistance to competitors to show them where to take your markets away from you, this effort is 100% counterproductive. Not only do the results hurt you, but the time it takes away from a small businessman often comes at the expense of operations, expansion, or even quality of service. Perhaps people who sit behind desks in Washington DC don't care about anything but press releases where they get to praise themselves and get lauded on TV, but for those of us who risk our life's savings and often years of our lives building a business by bootstrap have a LOT more at stake than a transitory and soon forgotten political posture by some appointed or hired public employee. So, as a small businessman, I cannot state how incredibly wrong ALL of this is, and that IN NO WAY should the FCC be in the business of deliberating wasting the time, money, and resources of small business people solely for the purpose of harming their future. So, in closing, I state for the record, there is no good aspect the collection of detailed information. It is not and has never been the business of Congress or the FCC to provide broadband. That's being done by thousands of hard working people who have risked everything they have to try to make it happen. It seems worse than Machiavellian, then, for the FCC to demand that these people then waste thier time, money, and energy, in an effort where the only result possible, is to harm them. insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 9:31 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Form 477 NPRM Comments Due I'm going to ask that we oppose this in its entirety, due to it giving away information we really don't need given away. Whatever your
Re: [WISPA] Form 477 NPRM Comments Due
You are sooo mis informed. There are thousands of small businesses, mom and pop telcos in this nation. Best business in the world. We do FTTH in the most rural areas of the nation. No innovation? You are an ignorant person. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 9:57 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Form 477 NPRM Comments Due Why on earth would you want to be a public utility? There are no small businesses in the public utility sector. There are no small business entries into the public utility sector. There is no innovation in the public utility sector. Public utilities are the least competitive and efficient businesses and means of service delivery. Why do you want to be put out of business? If you become a regulated public utility, 99% of all WISP's will be GONE. What a way to promote industry health and speak for WISP's insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 7:08 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Form 477 NPRM Comments Due Then I guess you do not want to evolve into a public utility. 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] great FAQ on the difference between dB and dBi/dBm
The article was good for our industry. There are tons of absolute dB readings like dBuV, dBrnc0 and dBspl. I always explain it as simply a logarithmic way of stating a measuring unit like power or force. You could have dBmpg (miles per gallon) if you wanted. A naked dB by itself is nothing more than a logarithmic multiplying factor. - Original Message - From: Rogelio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 8:45 AM Subject: [WISPA] great FAQ on the difference between dB and dBi/dBm http://www.broadbandreports.com/faq/14091 I hate to admit this, but I often get these mixed up (sort of like centripetal and centrifugal force!) 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] muddy frog
You are correct. I apologize. - Original Message - From: Steve Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 12:41 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] muddy frog Why don't you Not. I have enough junk mail don't need that as well. If muddy and chuck have issues cant they be aired elsewhere then this list. I have yet to see one exchange between these two that have been valuable to my business. I need positive help and advice not back biting and my dog is better than your dog messages. Do this bantering off list. Steve Barnes Executive Manager RCWiFi Wireless Internet Service (765)584-2288 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] end of thread
;-) Dang, that could be considered a reply, couldn't it. Must stop. Must not press send - Original Message - From: Rogelio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 2:04 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] end of thread Chuck McCown - 3 wrote: From his website I find the following; Together, [the two of them, Doug and Mark] we have more than 15 years of collective experience in PC building, service, updates, and repair, as well as internet networking, and connectivity services. Don't know about you, but I simply cannot argue with a whopping 15 years of experience split between two people! 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] formulas behind pathloss+RSSI calculators?
Tx power + antenna gain - free space path loss + rx antenna gain =rssi. - Original Message - From: Rogelio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 5:24 PM Subject: [WISPA] formulas behind pathloss+RSSI calculators? I'm looking for the math behind this website http://www.distributed-wireless.com/calculators/pathloss_RSSI.html I know the free space loss calculation (20 * Log10 (frequency in MHz) + 20 * Log10 (Distance in Miles) + 36.6), but what is the connection between that and the RSSI at that distant point? 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] formulas behind pathloss+RSSI calculators?
Here is an example. TX power of 30 dBm (1 watt) + 10 dB antenna gain = 40 dBm EIRP - Path loss (say 10 miles at 915 MHz) 116 dB + 10 dB RX antenna gain = -66 dBm RX signal level - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 5:31 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] formulas behind pathloss+RSSI calculators? Tx power + antenna gain - free space path loss + rx antenna gain =rssi. - Original Message - From: Rogelio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 5:24 PM Subject: [WISPA] formulas behind pathloss+RSSI calculators? I'm looking for the math behind this website http://www.distributed-wireless.com/calculators/pathloss_RSSI.html I know the free space loss calculation (20 * Log10 (frequency in MHz) + 20 * Log10 (Distance in Miles) + 36.6), but what is the connection between that and the RSSI at that distant point? 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] dead thread
Art sent a note to frog and tried to post a cc here. Not being a subscriber to this list it bounced. Being a 77 year old elder statesman of the telco industry, he has alot of perspective. If someone wants a copy of his reply to mr frog, hit me off list. - Original Message - From: Blake Bowers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 1:24 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] muddy frog I have sort of enjoyed this thread - BUT, here you launch off into something you know nothing about. Chuck McCown is the general manager (And I suspect part owner) of Beehive telephone. The CEO of Beehive is Art Brothers -and a better telecom businessman I don't think you will ever find. . . . 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] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents
So, what down converted 802.11a systems are there for 900? - Original Message - From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:19 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents Even thought this thread is a bit old, couldn't help but add my 2 cents (as there seems to be a resurgence of puff in this space) DISCLAIMER: I am also a vendor of various WiMAX 802.16d systems - so feel free to apply your necessary 'BS' filter Benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz 1. Spectral efficiency ( 4.85 gross bp/hz ) On a six sector configuration with only 25mhz of spectrum, you can effectively deliver approx 20mb per sector or 120 mb / per pop, 240 mb when all 50 mhz is supported. Support for thousands of subscribers is possible off the same BSU. This isn't all too exciting, IMO - there are plenty of systems out there that have similar (if not better) spectral efficiency characteristics as to what the WiMAX 802.16d standard offers...also, with the uncertainties of 3650 licensing, which is, from an interference protection perspective, not that much different that Part-15, higher order modulation schemes don't do much in the presence of noise Case in point: Why does everyone keep using Canopy 900 MHz systems when you can get an 802.11a OFDM-based down-converted system that delivers 3-4x the throughput? Well, it's a matter of what's actually going to work in the crowded 900 MHz band. 2. multiple vendor support ( currently you have Redline, Aperto, Airspan, Alvarion, all with FCC approved equipment ) The concept of interoperability is one of the most oversold features of WiMAX which needs to be explained... Fictitious Scenario: Say I had deployed Brand A system for my business users, and in order to enable VoIP services, I enable a variety of the more advanced MAC features (rTP for my VoIP)...I set up a variety of service flows that are customized to each user...blah blah blah Problem is, Brand A system, for whatever reason, didn't support UGS and a few esoteric service flow / packet filtering features, but at the time, I'm really not too concerned because (a) my customers don't demand UGS from me right now and (b) the concept of WiMAX interoperability story gives me the conclusion that if I really need UGS, I could just buy / upgrade to Brand X system and retain all of my Brand A CPEs that I've deployed. Now, 6 months later, I've deployed 50 CPE in the field, and business is doing good...so good in fact that 2 customers want to upgrade to a premium service that requires features not currently supported on Brand A AP. Luckily, I have a WiMAX system so I go upgrade Brand A AP with Brand X. Common sense would lead me to believe that Brand X would support all of my CPE's features, plus supporting the enhanced feature of UGS that I need Sorry, isn't going to work As things turn out, the only interoperability testing done between Brand A CPEs and Brand X APs were done at the Best Effort feature set (basic Ethernet connectivity)...additionally, Rf interoperability was done at a 3.5 MHz channel size, and I've been running Brand A at 10 MHz to maximize my throughput (oh, and Brand X only supports 3.5 MHz, 5 MHz 7 MHz channel sizes)...so to get this interoperability, I lose all of my rTP / VoIP prioritization for my entire network, or I have to go out and replace my 20 Brand A CPEs that are running VoIP with Brand X CPEs Oops What's the moral of the story? Ultimately, unless you're willing to run your network at the lowest common denominator, you're basically buying into a proprietary system. 3. Better RF performance ( even with siso systems ) Better RF performance as compared to what? And in what vein? I can easily slant the argument the other way by bringing up an example where a proprietary system outperforms WiMAX Noise Immunity: Are you saying that WiMAX has better noise immunity that Canopy (OFDM vs. FSK...yeah right) NLOS: Are you saying that WiMAX can do better NLoS than 900 MHz? Urban Reflective NLOS: Are you saying that WiMAX can do better Urban NLoS than a MIMO-based 1024-FFT OFDM system? 4. NLOS performance ( OFDM+OFDMA = More difficult shots obtain link ) See above 5. Better QOS support, and service flows ( UGS, NRTPS, ETC can be ) There can be an argument made that the WiMAX MAC is much more sophisticated than the Canopy / Alvarion VL / Trango / Tranzeo / CSMA-CA systems on the market today...that said, don't forget that there is a $$$COST$$$ for this sophistication...namely, you effectively lock yourself into a proprietary implementation of your WiMAX system 6. Greater scalablity ( Single sector can support hundreds of subscribers, our platform supports 30,000 pps ) WiMAX in it's true tested and interoperable state maxes
Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents
And these are as robust and immune from interference as Canopy? - Original Message - From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents So, what down converted 802.11a systems are there for 900? Mini-PCI: Ubiquiti Zcomax Vendor Solutions: Tranzeo Alvarion Vecima/WaveRider Wu-Wu Special* *We are doing some exploratory investigation =) -Charles - Original Message - From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:19 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents Even thought this thread is a bit old, couldn't help but add my 2 cents (as there seems to be a resurgence of puff in this space) DISCLAIMER: I am also a vendor of various WiMAX 802.16d systems - so feel free to apply your necessary 'BS' filter Benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz 1. Spectral efficiency ( 4.85 gross bp/hz ) On a six sector configuration with only 25mhz of spectrum, you can effectively deliver approx 20mb per sector or 120 mb / per pop, 240 mb when all 50 mhz is supported. Support for thousands of subscribers is possible off the same BSU. This isn't all too exciting, IMO - there are plenty of systems out there that have similar (if not better) spectral efficiency characteristics as to what the WiMAX 802.16d standard offers...also, with the uncertainties of 3650 licensing, which is, from an interference protection perspective, not that much different that Part-15, higher order modulation schemes don't do much in the presence of noise Case in point: Why does everyone keep using Canopy 900 MHz systems when you can get an 802.11a OFDM-based down-converted system that delivers 3-4x the throughput? Well, it's a matter of what's actually going to work in the crowded 900 MHz band. 2. multiple vendor support ( currently you have Redline, Aperto, Airspan, Alvarion, all with FCC approved equipment ) The concept of interoperability is one of the most oversold features of WiMAX which needs to be explained... Fictitious Scenario: Say I had deployed Brand A system for my business users, and in order to enable VoIP services, I enable a variety of the more advanced MAC features (rTP for my VoIP)...I set up a variety of service flows that are customized to each user...blah blah blah Problem is, Brand A system, for whatever reason, didn't support UGS and a few esoteric service flow / packet filtering features, but at the time, I'm really not too concerned because (a) my customers don't demand UGS from me right now and (b) the concept of WiMAX interoperability story gives me the conclusion that if I really need UGS, I could just buy / upgrade to Brand X system and retain all of my Brand A CPEs that I've deployed. Now, 6 months later, I've deployed 50 CPE in the field, and business is doing good...so good in fact that 2 customers want to upgrade to a premium service that requires features not currently supported on Brand A AP. Luckily, I have a WiMAX system so I go upgrade Brand A AP with Brand X. Common sense would lead me to believe that Brand X would support all of my CPE's features, plus supporting the enhanced feature of UGS that I need Sorry, isn't going to work As things turn out, the only interoperability testing done between Brand A CPEs and Brand X APs were done at the Best Effort feature set (basic Ethernet connectivity)...additionally, Rf interoperability was done at a 3.5 MHz channel size, and I've been running Brand A at 10 MHz to maximize my throughput (oh, and Brand X only supports 3.5 MHz, 5 MHz 7 MHz channel sizes)...so to get this interoperability, I lose all of my rTP / VoIP prioritization for my entire network, or I have to go out and replace my 20 Brand A CPEs that are running VoIP with Brand X CPEs Oops What's the moral of the story? Ultimately, unless you're willing to run your network at the lowest common denominator, you're basically buying into a proprietary system. 3. Better RF performance ( even with siso systems ) Better RF performance as compared to what? And in what vein? I can easily slant the argument the other way by bringing up an example where a proprietary system outperforms WiMAX Noise Immunity: Are you saying that WiMAX has better noise immunity that Canopy (OFDM vs. FSK...yeah right) NLOS: Are you saying that WiMAX can do better NLoS than 900 MHz? Urban Reflective NLOS: Are you saying that WiMAX can do better Urban NLoS than a MIMO-based 1024-FFT OFDM system? 4. NLOS performance ( OFDM+OFDMA = More difficult shots obtain link ) See above 5. Better QOS support, and service flows ( UGS, NRTPS, ETC can be ) There can be an argument made that the WiMAX MAC is much more sophisticated than the Canopy /
Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents
Their 45 has promise. - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 1:04 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents Hi, You are correct... my mistake. However, the MM5 was going to be 5ghz along with an MM2 (2.4ghz) and MM9 (900mhz)... but as you mentioned, the products have been discontinued. Which really leaves me wondering what Trango is going to be selling? Their 5 year old product is getting slow, and is still very expensive. :( Travis Charles Wu wrote: Travis, The Trango 5830 / 900 / 2400 were up/down-coverted 802.11b - not 802.11a systems The only 802.11a multipoint system that Trango had was MM5, and it is my understanding that (1) it was never for 900 MHz and (2) it has been put on hold / discontinued -Charles --- WiNOG Wireless Roadshows Coming to a City Near You http://www.winog.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents What about Trango? Charles Wu wrote: So, what down converted 802.11a systems are there for 900? Mini-PCI: Ubiquiti Zcomax Vendor Solutions: Tranzeo Alvarion Vecima/WaveRider Wu-Wu Special* *We are doing some exploratory investigation =) -Charles - Original Message - From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.orgmailto:wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:19 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents Even thought this thread is a bit old, couldn't help but add my 2 cents (as there seems to be a resurgence of puff in this space) DISCLAIMER: I am also a vendor of various WiMAX 802.16d systems - so feel free to apply your necessary 'BS' filter Benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz 1. Spectral efficiency ( 4.85 gross bp/hz ) On a six sector configuration with only 25mhz of spectrum, you can effectively deliver approx 20mb per sector or 120 mb / per pop, 240 mb when all 50 mhz is supported. Support for thousands of subscribers is possible off the same BSU. This isn't all too exciting, IMO - there are plenty of systems out there that have similar (if not better) spectral efficiency characteristics as to what the WiMAX 802.16d standard offers...also, with the uncertainties of 3650 licensing, which is, from an interference protection perspective, not that much different that Part-15, higher order modulation schemes don't do much in the presence of noise Case in point: Why does everyone keep using Canopy 900 MHz systems when you can get an 802.11a OFDM-based down-converted system that delivers 3-4x the throughput? Well, it's a matter of what's actually going to work in the crowded 900 MHz band. 2. multiple vendor support ( currently you have Redline, Aperto, Airspan, Alvarion, all with FCC approved equipment ) The concept of interoperability is one of the most oversold features of WiMAX which needs to be explained... Fictitious Scenario: Say I had deployed Brand A system for my business users, and in order to enable VoIP services, I enable a variety of the more advanced MAC features (rTP for my VoIP)...I set up a variety of service flows that are customized to each user...blah blah blah Problem is, Brand A system, for whatever reason, didn't support UGS and a few esoteric service flow / packet filtering features, but at the time, I'm really not too concerned because (a) my customers don't demand UGS from me right now and (b) the concept of WiMAX interoperability story gives me the conclusion that if I really need UGS, I could just buy / upgrade to Brand X system and retain all of my Brand A CPEs that I've deployed. Now, 6 months later, I've deployed 50 CPE in the field, and business is doing good...so good in fact that 2 customers want to upgrade to a premium service that requires features not currently supported on Brand A AP. Luckily, I have a WiMAX system so I go upgrade Brand A AP with Brand X. Common sense would lead me to believe that Brand X would support all of my CPE's features, plus supporting the enhanced feature of UGS that I need Sorry, isn't going to work As things turn out, the only interoperability testing done between Brand A CPEs and Brand X APs were done at the Best Effort feature set (basic Ethernet connectivity)...additionally, Rf interoperability was done at a 3.5 MHz channel size, and I've been running Brand A at 10 MHz to maximize my throughput (oh, and Brand X only supports 3.5 MHz, 5 MHz 7 MHz channel sizes)...so to get this interoperability,
Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents
No, the point to point. - Original Message - From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 2:43 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents Their 45 has promise. Chuck, if you're talking about their high-bandwidth multipoint 5 GHz product, it was recently halted / stalled / discontinued -Charles --- WiNOG Wireless Roadshows Coming to a City Near You http://www.winog.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3 Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 2:41 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 1:04 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents Hi, You are correct... my mistake. However, the MM5 was going to be 5ghz along with an MM2 (2.4ghz) and MM9 (900mhz)... but as you mentioned, the products have been discontinued. Which really leaves me wondering what Trango is going to be selling? Their 5 year old product is getting slow, and is still very expensive. :( Travis Charles Wu wrote: Travis, The Trango 5830 / 900 / 2400 were up/down-coverted 802.11b - not 802.11a systems The only 802.11a multipoint system that Trango had was MM5, and it is my understanding that (1) it was never for 900 MHz and (2) it has been put on hold / discontinued -Charles --- WiNOG Wireless Roadshows Coming to a City Near You http://www.winog.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents What about Trango? Charles Wu wrote: So, what down converted 802.11a systems are there for 900? Mini-PCI: Ubiquiti Zcomax Vendor Solutions: Tranzeo Alvarion Vecima/WaveRider Wu-Wu Special* *We are doing some exploratory investigation =) -Charles - Original Message - From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.orgmailto:wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:19 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents Even thought this thread is a bit old, couldn't help but add my 2 cents (as there seems to be a resurgence of puff in this space) DISCLAIMER: I am also a vendor of various WiMAX 802.16d systems - so feel free to apply your necessary 'BS' filter Benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz 1. Spectral efficiency ( 4.85 gross bp/hz ) On a six sector configuration with only 25mhz of spectrum, you can effectively deliver approx 20mb per sector or 120 mb / per pop, 240 mb when all 50 mhz is supported. Support for thousands of subscribers is possible off the same BSU. This isn't all too exciting, IMO - there are plenty of systems out there that have similar (if not better) spectral efficiency characteristics as to what the WiMAX 802.16d standard offers...also, with the uncertainties of 3650 licensing, which is, from an interference protection perspective, not that much different that Part-15, higher order modulation schemes don't do much in the presence of noise Case in point: Why does everyone keep using Canopy 900 MHz systems when you can get an 802.11a OFDM-based down-converted system that delivers 3-4x the throughput? Well, it's a matter of what's actually going to work in the crowded 900 MHz band. 2. multiple vendor support ( currently you have Redline, Aperto, Airspan, Alvarion, all with FCC approved equipment ) The concept of interoperability is one of the most oversold features of WiMAX which needs to be explained... Fictitious Scenario: Say I had deployed Brand A system for my business users, and in order to enable VoIP services, I enable a variety of the more advanced MAC features (rTP for my VoIP)...I set up a variety of service flows that are customized to each user...blah blah blah Problem is, Brand A system, for whatever reason, didn't support UGS and a few esoteric service flow / packet filtering features, but at the time, I'm really not too concerned because (a) my customers don't demand UGS from me right now and (b) the concept of WiMAX interoperability story gives me the conclusion that if I really need UGS, I could just buy / upgrade to Brand X system and retain all of my Brand A CPEs that I've deployed. Now, 6 months later, I've deployed 50 CPE in the field, and business is doing good...so good in fact that 2 customers want to upgrade to a premium service
Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents
CopperCom... Hmmm. Taqua is still around and strong. I have a story to tell you about Taqua someday. Motorola: There still is no SM left behind. The 400 is a totally different product line. But they are still coming out with new Canopy products. The line may bifurcate, but they are still true to the no sm left behind mantra. At least for the time being. - Original Message - From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 3:02 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents Trango is a very opportunistic company ran by a smart and opportunistic individual, and Z tends to chase the market that makes Z the most money (can't really blame him, as every small business / entrepreneur ultimately employs a similar type of strategy)...at this juncture, their cheap licensed backhaul is probably creating more buzz and profitability for them than trying to develop a multi-point line in a market that's currently racing to the bottom... Think about it, if you were a radio manufacturer, and you could sell a $8-10k backhaul to a single customer that probably has the same amount (if not more) of margin vs selling several hundred SUs to about 30-50 different WISPs, which would you pick? That said, the good news about Trango is that they're privately held (by Z), profitable, and not really in danger of going out of business...the only thing you can blame them for is not being true to their promises in 2004/2005 about an upgrade path for their multi-point product line So yell at them for not being willing to take a longer-term view of the market, but with the rapid change in today's market, is this really even possible? Broken promises in telecom are nothing new Motorola's No-SM left behind program (that got left behind with the Canopy 400 series product) Wi-LAN's WiMAX Upgrade Guarantee (they went out of business and I doubt EION Wireless is going to honor those contracts) Remember KarlNet? Think that's bad...look elsewhere in the Telecom market...anyone ever heard of CopperCom =) -Charles --- WiNOG Wireless Roadshows Coming to a City Near You http://www.winog.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 2:04 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents Hi, You are correct... my mistake. However, the MM5 was going to be 5ghz along with an MM2 (2.4ghz) and MM9 (900mhz)... but as you mentioned, the products have been discontinued. Which really leaves me wondering what Trango is going to be selling? Their 5 year old product is getting slow, and is still very expensive. :( Travis Charles Wu wrote: Travis, The Trango 5830 / 900 / 2400 were up/down-coverted 802.11b - not 802.11a systems The only 802.11a multipoint system that Trango had was MM5, and it is my understanding that (1) it was never for 900 MHz and (2) it has been put on hold / discontinued -Charles --- WiNOG Wireless Roadshows Coming to a City Near You http://www.winog.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents What about Trango? Charles Wu wrote: So, what down converted 802.11a systems are there for 900? Mini-PCI: Ubiquiti Zcomax Vendor Solutions: Tranzeo Alvarion Vecima/WaveRider Wu-Wu Special* *We are doing some exploratory investigation =) -Charles - Original Message - From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.orgmailto:wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:19 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents Even thought this thread is a bit old, couldn't help but add my 2 cents (as there seems to be a resurgence of puff in this space) DISCLAIMER: I am also a vendor of various WiMAX 802.16d systems - so feel free to apply your necessary 'BS' filter Benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz 1. Spectral efficiency ( 4.85 gross bp/hz ) On a six sector configuration with only 25mhz of spectrum, you can effectively deliver approx 20mb per sector or 120 mb / per pop, 240 mb when all 50 mhz is supported. Support for thousands of subscribers is possible off the same BSU. This isn't all too exciting, IMO - there are plenty of systems out there that have similar (if not better) spectral efficiency characteristics as to what the WiMAX 802.16d standard offers...also, with the uncertainties of 3650 licensing, which is, from an interference protection perspective, not that much
Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents
I have been on both ends of this as a manufacturer. I made airborne PBX systems that were installed in the avionics bay of head-of-state, military command and control and corporate fleet aircraft. Almost got airforce1. (I could only do 48 phones and they needed more!) I was very proud of that product line and made good money. We had one point of distribution and installation. But I will take our current situation of a half dozen distributors selling to hundreds of customers a product line that has a couple of dozen low cost items any day. - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson To: WISPA General List Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 4:01 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents Charles, How about selling hundreds of AP's and thousands of SU's to a single customer... and now that's gone. I understand selling a $10k radio has more profit than a few AP's and SU's, but I am only ever going to buy a few of the $10k radio sets, compared with literally thousands of SU's over the years. Travis Microserv Charles Wu wrote: Trango is a very opportunistic company ran by a smart and opportunistic individual, and Z tends to chase the market that makes Z the most money (can't really blame him, as every small business / entrepreneur ultimately employs a similar type of strategy)...at this juncture, their cheap licensed backhaul is probably creating more buzz and profitability for them than trying to develop a multi-point line in a market that's currently racing to the bottom... Think about it, if you were a radio manufacturer, and you could sell a $8-10k backhaul to a single customer that probably has the same amount (if not more) of margin vs selling several hundred SUs to about 30-50 different WISPs, which would you pick? That said, the good news about Trango is that they're privately held (by Z), profitable, and not really in danger of going out of business...the only thing you can blame them for is not being true to their promises in 2004/2005 about an upgrade path for their multi-point product line So yell at them for not being willing to take a longer-term view of the market, but with the rapid change in today's market, is this really even possible? Broken promises in telecom are nothing new Motorola's No-SM left behind program (that got left behind with the Canopy 400 series product) Wi-LAN's WiMAX Upgrade Guarantee (they went out of business and I doubt EION Wireless is going to honor those contracts) Remember KarlNet? Think that's bad...look elsewhere in the Telecom market...anyone ever heard of CopperCom =) -Charles --- WiNOG Wireless Roadshows Coming to a City Near You http://www.winog.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 2:04 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents Hi, You are correct... my mistake. However, the MM5 was going to be 5ghz along with an MM2 (2.4ghz) and MM9 (900mhz)... but as you mentioned, the products have been discontinued. Which really leaves me wondering what Trango is going to be selling? Their 5 year old product is getting slow, and is still very expensive. :( Travis Charles Wu wrote: Travis, The Trango 5830 / 900 / 2400 were up/down-coverted 802.11b - not 802.11a systems The only 802.11a multipoint system that Trango had was MM5, and it is my understanding that (1) it was never for 900 MHz and (2) it has been put on hold / discontinued -Charles --- WiNOG Wireless Roadshows Coming to a City Near You http://www.winog.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents What about Trango? Charles Wu wrote: So, what down converted 802.11a systems are there for 900? Mini-PCI: Ubiquiti Zcomax Vendor Solutions: Tranzeo Alvarion Vecima/WaveRider Wu-Wu Special* *We are doing some exploratory investigation =) -Charles - Original Message - From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.orgmailto:wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:19 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10 benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz - my 2 cents Even thought this thread is a bit old, couldn't help but add my 2 cents (as there seems to be a resurgence of puff in this space) DISCLAIMER: I am also a vendor of various WiMAX 802.16d systems - so feel free to apply your necessary 'BS' filter Benefits of Wimax in 3.65ghz 1. Spectral efficiency ( 4.85 gross bp/hz ) On a six sector configuration with only 25mhz of spectrum, you can effectively deliver approx 20mb per sector or 120 mb / per
Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.
Not true. Not true at all. Cable Companies are not rate of return regulated. Every dollar they spend is below the line. The ILECS are strictly regulated as to what can be spent above the line. Tarrifed rates ONLY support tarrifed services. - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 11:52 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need. Why not? Isn't that kinda what Cable Cos and ILECs Do? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 2:37 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need. The power company wants to take rate payer money and build a broadband network that will contact each meter for the purpose of managing energy. It will also supply broadband to the homeowner if they want. This should not be allowed. - Original Message - From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:34 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need. Chuck McCown wrote: Time to speak up. Anyone care to translate this for those among us who don't speak lawyerese, and who don't live/work in Indiana? David Smith MVN.net 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] Just what we need.
Not exactly true. The POTS infrastructure rate of return is recovered through basic rates, NECA and USF settlements. It truly supports itself nicely. We do have to option of refusing to offer Naked DSL. But that extra revenue does not get applied to local loop support. It goes in our pocket to be spent any way we want. - Original Message - From: Larry Yunker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 10:05 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need. While the ILECs may have been unable to directly pass along the cost of their broadband infrastructure to the consumer, they have successful engaged in a reverse of the concept. They have placed the burden of their dying POTS infrastructure on their broadband subscribers. ILECS have instituted tying agreements which essentially force broadband subscribers into purchasing tariffed services. For example, if you want $19.95/month DSL, you must-purchase the ILEC's $62/month all frills included phone service package. Of course, someone will cry out what about naked-DSL? Yes, it exists in most markets now, but it will cost you roughly $50-$55/month for the same plan that you would get for $19.95/month if you were so kind as to agree to subsidize ma-Bell's poor starving land-line phone service. Seems ironic doesn't it... the ILEC can't force its telephone subscribers to pay for its broadband expansion through tariffed rates (it wouldn't work because most people would get cell phones and ditch the land line before they would agree to pay a bunch more for their land line), so ILECs work the system backwards... people still want DSL, so lets force them to buy our next-to-useless landline phone service in order to get our coveted broadband service. Unfortunately, I don't see people cutting their electric company service and installing solar cells as a replacements anytime soon, so if the electric company were to engage in broadband as suggested, it would be scary for all other broadband carriers. - Larry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3 Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 10:53 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need. Not true. Not true at all. Cable Companies are not rate of return regulated. Every dollar they spend is below the line. The ILECS are strictly regulated as to what can be spent above the line. Tarrifed rates ONLY support tarrifed services. - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 11:52 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need. Why not? Isn't that kinda what Cable Cos and ILECs Do? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 2:37 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need. The power company wants to take rate payer money and build a broadband network that will contact each meter for the purpose of managing energy. It will also supply broadband to the homeowner if they want. This should not be allowed. - Original Message - From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:34 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need. Chuck McCown wrote: Time to speak up. Anyone care to translate this for those among us who don't speak lawyerese, and who don't live/work in Indiana? David Smith MVN.net 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
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
I wonder if the chip could be changed to give you more memory. - Original Message - From: Butch Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 11:23 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Travis Johnson wrote: And although I have great respect for StarOS, the Mikrotik community is at least 10x bigger than StarOS... it would make more sense for Ubiquiti to load Mikrotik on the Nano's... ;) First, there is not enough flash on the Nanos to hold MT. IIRC, the flash on the nano is 4M (maybe 8?). I can't recall exactly, but it's not enough either way. That is the only thing that limits the ability to run MT on the Nano, as the remaining hardware is pretty close to the same thing as the RB133C. -- *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering *MikroTik RouterOS* *573-276-2879 *ImageStream * *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE * *http://blog.butchevans.com/*Wired or wireless Networks* *Mikrotik Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer* 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] Just what we need.
Yeah, I am always on the lookout for the ILEC comment here and there. Our ILEC has 900 customers scattered over 12 counties of two states with about 800 miles of fiber. We have 13 central office switches. That is an average of about 70 subscribers per CO switch. We have 21 office codes/wire centers. So, we don't really fit the mold of most ILECs but the same rules apply. Running an ILEC this small forces one to master the whole regulatory landscape where the RBOCs have whole floors of office buildings devoted to single issues. We have 5 times more WISP customers, all in RBOC, former RBOC or Frontier turf. - Original Message - From: Larry Yunker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 12:46 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need. Chuck, I wasn't suggesting that the POTS tariffs were insufficient to support the POTS infrastructure. I was drawing the conclusion that most of the large ILECs have opted to structure their DSL service offering so as to make a service bundle the only rational way to purchase the DSL service. The cost differential between Naked-DSL and DSL+Phone is often such that it is CHEAPER to buy the DSL+Phone. Thus, the ILEC can force people to choose between continuing to subscribe to POTS or not getting DSL at all. As you note... YOU as a non-RBOC ILEC have the option of refusing to offer Naked DSL. I should have been more clear with my initial comments. My assumptions are drawn upon the RBOCs (what's left of them). I believe that ATT is under an agreement with the FTC which provides that they must provide naked DSL in all markets in which they currently of DSL. I wouldn't be surprised if Verizon were not under the same sort of agreement. These were concessions made when negotiating the approval of the RBOC + LD megamergers. Since the RBOCs account for over 90% of the POTS service in the U.S. I sometimes slip and refer to them generically as ILECs. As you validly point out, some independent ILECs continue to exist and have much more flexibility in their service offerings. - Larry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3 Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 2:07 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need. Not exactly true. The POTS infrastructure rate of return is recovered through basic rates, NECA and USF settlements. It truly supports itself nicely. We do have to option of refusing to offer Naked DSL. But that extra revenue does not get applied to local loop support. It goes in our pocket to be spent any way we want. - Original Message - From: Larry Yunker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 10:05 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need. While the ILECs may have been unable to directly pass along the cost of their broadband infrastructure to the consumer, they have successful engaged in a reverse of the concept. They have placed the burden of their dying POTS infrastructure on their broadband subscribers. ILECS have instituted tying agreements which essentially force broadband subscribers into purchasing tariffed services. For example, if you want $19.95/month DSL, you must-purchase the ILEC's $62/month all frills included phone service package. Of course, someone will cry out what about naked-DSL? Yes, it exists in most markets now, but it will cost you roughly $50-$55/month for the same plan that you would get for $19.95/month if you were so kind as to agree to subsidize ma-Bell's poor starving land-line phone service. Seems ironic doesn't it... the ILEC can't force its telephone subscribers to pay for its broadband expansion through tariffed rates (it wouldn't work because most people would get cell phones and ditch the land line before they would agree to pay a bunch more for their land line), so ILECs work the system backwards... people still want DSL, so lets force them to buy our next-to-useless landline phone service in order to get our coveted broadband service. Unfortunately, I don't see people cutting their electric company service and installing solar cells as a replacements anytime soon, so if the electric company were to engage in broadband as suggested, it would be scary for all other broadband carriers. - Larry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3 Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 10:53 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need. Not true. Not true at all. Cable Companies are not rate of return regulated. Every dollar they spend is below the line. The ILECS are strictly regulated as to what can be spent above the line. Tarrifed rates ONLY support tarrifed services. - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
There used to be a graphic on one of the Canopy marketing pages showing the loading vs latency curves for polled vs non polled systems. Lightly loaded 802.11 will always do better but once you get up to 20 or 30 users, the polling type systems start to shine with their fixed latency. - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson To: WISPA General List Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:20 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Matt, Having 90-100 subs on an AP that supports roughly 20Mbps of bandwidth is different than an AP that supports 5Mbps with 128 subs. There is a reason Trango, Canopy, Alvarion, and many others do a polling system... it allows better, more effecient use of the available bandwidth... especially for providers like me that sell a symmetrical service (1meg x 1meg, 2meg x 2meg, etc.). So the upload is just as important as the download. Here's a test for you... take an AP without polling and start an upload on a client that is 80% of the capacity of the AP and then try and surf with another connected client and see how it feels... if it's even possible. With the Trango AP's, we are able to use 95% of the rated bandwidth on each AP before we see any issues (jitter, latency, etc.). That just is not possible with a non-polling system (in upload or download scenarios). Travis Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Travis, I've got 802.11a APs with 90-100 subs on them without polling and customers are very happy. I am one of them - as I have a 4meg connection at my house that does just about anything my Trango gear would do when I was using it. Bandwidth control addresses nearly all of the issues that polling does in the implementations I have put together. As far as the MT community being 10x the size of the StarOS Community - it's not how big it is, it is what you do with it. :^) I've had plenty of experience with both StarOS and MT, and MT just doesn't have certain features that StarOS does. StarOS has kickass Atheros drivers and a superior way of automating the provisioning and deployment. MT does have a lot of other cool features, but I don't use them so they don't mean a lot to me. FWIW, the WAR-1 version of StarOS is stripped down to the point where it fits into 4meg of memory. Probably wouldn't be hard to port it to the Nanos. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Johnson wrote: Matt, Polling is a requirement for a system that will scale to larger number of clients. I have Trango AP's that will only do 5Mbps total bandwidth, yet we have loaded them up to their max clients (128) and have no issues. Latency is less than 5ms to any client at any time, and the bandwidth is smooth and consistent. And although I have great respect for StarOS, the Mikrotik community is at least 10x bigger than StarOS... it would make more sense for Ubiquiti to load Mikrotik on the Nano's... ;) Travis Microserv Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Travis Johnson wrote: Matt, I agree with almost everything you said... except the polling part. Having a robust, efficient polling system is the best thing available for outdoor wireless. That is one of the main reasons we are now using Mikrotik is because of their Nstreme and polling system. We are finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does work. How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the AP (on the upload side). Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an upload running. Um, bandwidth limiting? As long as the AP has the upload speed coming from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity of the pipe, its not a problem. I'm doing the test right now, and I have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter. What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :) Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List:
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this. - Original Message - From: Japhy Bartlett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book.. Remember how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game? How the company that wrote software for specific hardware lost - hard? For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good code already written and being developed? Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin. solution. I.e., Windows and Apple. Look at how the PC market converged towards x86! If Mikrotik or some of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to port every stinking firmware flavor. Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful business model .. ever? And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, well this firmware does X better. Is there anything particularly different between Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS? - japhy And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon. On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS. I don't understand why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40. Hardware has to be manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent. If they are already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost. People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint. Even with an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE. That is $10 less than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure. It would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE. If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend market and finally have certified gear out there. The upgrade path would be perfect for their hardware. They would sell the AP hardware as well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and still make $40/CPE on the cheap end. And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS network. I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after manufacture and shipping. I really don't see the downside to this, especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti really expressed and interest in working with them. Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested... Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Matt Ferre wrote: Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly see why. Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No, their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never ever. On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote: Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone? My understanding (this is friend of a friend quality info) is that MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform. It is not something that is going to happen out of the box, however with a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that could be done. I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4 license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost. -- *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering *MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream * *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE * *http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Well, if there was a framework of working code, and a group to help write a spec, I am sure some of us would hack at some of it. For example, a fraction of NAT or PPPoE or a filter or whatever could be done in bite size pieces. I would love to write a small chunk. I used to support myself writing code and still find it mildly theraputic when I seldom get the chance. But I really have no clue as to how much ROS or any of the other products cost as we are a 100% canopy shop. - Original Message - From: Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:06 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations I think for the most part those that would like something like this and have the skills to do it, don't have the time to do the initial work or support it. It is easier to just buy StarOS or ROS, or buy equipment that already has the license for it. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Chuck McCown - 3 wrote: I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this. - Original Message - From: Japhy Bartlett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book.. Remember how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game? How the company that wrote software for specific hardware lost - hard? For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good code already written and being developed? Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin. solution. I.e., Windows and Apple. Look at how the PC market converged towards x86! If Mikrotik or some of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to port every stinking firmware flavor. Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful business model .. ever? And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, well this firmware does X better. Is there anything particularly different between Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS? - japhy And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon. On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS. I don't understand why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40. Hardware has to be manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent. If they are already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost. People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint. Even with an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE. That is $10 less than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure. It would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE. If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend market and finally have certified gear out there. The upgrade path would be perfect for their hardware. They would sell the AP hardware as well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and still make $40/CPE on the cheap end. And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS network. I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after manufacture and shipping. I really don't see the downside to this, especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti really expressed and interest in working with them. Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested... Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Matt Ferre wrote: Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly see why. Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No, their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never ever. On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote
