Re: [WISPA] Advice on Legal Options for Competitor Interference

[Matt Liotta]

Do you have anything in writing from them agreeing to frequency 
coordination? If you do and they violated that agreement then you may 
well have a case. I doubt you are going to have much luck pursuing them 
on the interference issue otherwise. Now if they have antennas and 
amplifiers with their Wi-Fi equipment it is very likely they aren't 
using FCC certified systems, which could allow the FCC to shut them down 
as well as fine them.


-Matt

Todd Barber wrote:

I have had equipment deployed on a local water tank for about the last 
two years. The setup has been sectorized and using 3 120 degree 2.4 
GHz channels since we deployed. I also have 4 5.8 GHz links running 
and one 5.3 GHz. Basically this site is vital to my network and I have 
used a large chunk of the unlicensed spectrum.


About a year ago another company deployed a 5.8 GHz backhaul link and 
a 2.4 GHz omni on the residence that is approximately 100 yards away 
from the tank. Their initial deployment created 2.4 GHz interference 
with my existing customers and I squeezed my existing sectorized 
channels together to get away from it. I’ve been using 4, 7, and 11 
while they have been deployed on 1.


In the past I have used a spectrum analyzer to evaluate the signals 
from both my site and theirs. I believe all of my equipment is running 
right at 36 dB as allowed by law for point to multipoint. When 
measured with the same antenna from the same distance, their signal is 
approximately 7 dB higher than mine. In addition to the excessive 
power it also appears the amp they are using is dirty and the channel 
width is wider than anything I am running.


Their initial deployment really upset me as their lack of engineering 
judgment or just plain stupidity created issues for my customers who 
had reliable links before. I couldn’t believe that anyone would choose 
to deploy 2.4 GHz within a hundred yards of an existing installation 
that was already using the entire spectrum. I have tolerated the 
situation and dealt with the interference on my lower channel by over 
engineering any links to that sector. I have also had my backhaul link 
performance intermittently knocked off line after they changed 
channels on their 5.8 GHz equipment.


During the backhaul interference issue I contacted the company and 
give them credit for working with me to resolve the issue. During that 
conversation they informed me they were more than willing to 
coordinate with me and would notify me if they were changing channels.


Over the last few weeks I have been fighting with numerous troublesome 
client connections on two different sectors that had been running 
without issue. Today I went to the tank to upgrade the remaining 2 
APPO units to a StarOS WRAP setup in an effort to improve performance.


When I arrived I found that my competitor has now installed a 50 ft. 
pole and has deployed an additional 4 radios on it. Needless to say I 
immediately understood why so many of my customers were experiencing 
issues. I also see that the competitor was really sincere about 
contacting me around channel usage.


My questions are what are my legal options, has anyone dealt with this 
type of situation before (deployment within 100 yards), and what kind 
of lawyer should I contact (any referrals are welecome)? With the 
current heavy usage of spectrum at this site I do not believe there is 
any option of let’s play nice and coordinate channels. There aren’t 
any left to coordinate and they were all used before they deployed. I 
don’t feel I have any option but legal action.


From past list discussions I am under the impression that there may be 
the non FCC involved option of filing “interfering with my ability to 
conduct business” suit. Any comments on this would be greatly 
appreciated.


I also believe I may have recourse with the FCC. I am confident they 
are exceeding the legal EIRP on their amped omni as one issue. I also 
question if their behavior could be construed as intentionally causing 
interference. Knowingly deploying within 100 yards of an existing site 
that is already utilizing the spectrum seems to create a situation 
that can not avoid interference. If they didn’t know at the time of 
their initial deployment they were made aware of exactly what spectrum 
was being used since via voice and email exchanges. Even if they are 
not competent enough to use a spectrum analyzer they had been informed 
of both the existing and potential for further interference issues 
before the deployment of the new additional 4 radios I found today. 
I’m not really sure I want to go down this path but again I don’t 
believe they have left me any other options. How do I begin a 
conversation with the FCC related to this situation?


Any and all comments would be greatly appreciated.

Todd Barber

Skylink Broadband Internet

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

970-454-9499



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Re: [WISPA] 900MHz performance (Latency, Throughput)

[Matt Liotta]

Charles Wu wrote:


P.S. I'm still looking for a goodphp guy to help fix things here

The first step would be to stop using PHP or for that matter any other 
language that encourages unmaintainable code.


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

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

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

Re: [WISPA] 900MHz performance (Latency, Throughput)

[Matt Liotta]

Charles Wu wrote:


Do you have any better suggestions?

 


What are your requirements?

-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] ot rj45 crimpers

[Matt Liotta]

What is your time worth?

-Matt

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


That's it.  Thanks!

Do you really pay $.60 per connector???  Maybe it's not as nice of a 
tool as I thought


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



- Original Message - From: "Aubrey Wells" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 9:14 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] ot rj45 crimpers



http://www.happcontrols.com/electrical_supplies/92060900.htm

---
Aubrey Wells
One Ring Networks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
o: (404) 601.1407
f: (404) 601.1408
c: (770) 356.9767



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


Hi All,

I'm looking for a crimper I saw someone talk about.  It uses special 
rj45 connectors that allow the cable to go through the end.  Then 
the crimper crimps and cuts to length at the same time.


Anyone know what it's called and where to get the connectors and the 
crimper?


thanks!

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

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




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

[Matt Liotta]

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

First off, don't.  Mesh is all the rage today.  Just like hotspots 
were a couple of years ago.  Mesh and muni are often rolled out in the 
same sentence.  Show me ONE that's working correctly past the 6 to 12 
month stage..
 


Come down and visit some of our mesh networks if you'd like. Mesh may be 
a over-hyped buzzword not unlike WiMAX, but that doesn't mean the 
technology is not without merit.


Having said that, you can still give them the same functionality. 
 


No you can't. P2P and P2MP systems are static layer 2 and layer 3 
architectures where as a mesh system can be dynamic at both layer 2 and 
layer 3.


Same functionality, greater flexibility, MUCH better scalability and, 
I believe, much better stability. 


Functionally, both systems deliver data, but flexibility is higher with 
mesh, scalability could be better or worse depending on the network, and 
stability is almost never a function of architecture.


With all the above being stated, mesh is easy to achieve and hard to get 
right. Don't even bother with WDS or other poor man's mesh. If you can't 
afford to do mesh right, don't; stick with P2MP. Folks can argue the 
multiple radio issue as much as they want in regard to mesh and Tropos 
with its single radio nodes continue to run circles around everyone 
else. We have deployed Tropos and while we don't like certain aspects 
about them, I can tell you without a doubt that they are the most well 
engineered mesh nodes I have ever encountered.


With that being said, we are now deploying multiple radio mesh nodes 
because the requirements of our project demand them. However, the amount 
of engineering that goes into making a multiple radio mesh work rivals 
and some would say exceeds that of a cellular network.


In short, mesh sounds good in theory, mesh is easy to create 
technically, but in practice, in the field, mesh is hard to get right 
unless you have a product like Tropos that does it all for you.


-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

[Matt Liotta]

Tom DeReggi wrote:

No the problem with Mesh is it adds many hops to the path, therefore 
adding significant latency, and inability to control QOS, or identify 
where the QOS lies. Self interference is impossible to avoid without 
killing every other in town at the same time.


Mesh doesn't have to add hops where they aren't needed or wanted. 
Further, there is no inherent added latency for a mesh network. 
Certainly hops and TDM add latency, but that is the case with all 
network architectures.


Well that brings nother issues up. Adding complexity where it is not 
needed in many cases. There is reliabity added by doing it at layer2. 
Fewer compenent to fail and manage. There is a benefit to centralized 
management and configuration, when scaling large projects.  When end 
users have routers at the DMarc, there is often little need to route, 
as the path is rarely peer to peer in nature, and all tend to follow 
the path to backbone.  Not that I'm not saying Routing doesn;t have 
its importance to be implemented at the right strategic places. Its 
jsut not needed every hop along the path. There are automated routing 
tasks like RIP and OSPF, or simlar, but its awefully risky allowing 
route advertizing to the front edge of ones network, or the consumer 
radio to have the abilty to advertise routes. Layer2 virtual circuits 
and VPN, are also often adequate solution to solve problems of 
deployment.


Unless we are talking best effort, all customers should have their own 
VLAN and therefore any network will have an upper limit on its size 
without routers. Clearly some combination of layer 2 and layer 3 is the 
right way to go for even a medium size network.



The Super cell gives the ISP better central control and simplicity.


I don't believe an argument has been made to back up your above statement.

Mesh has its purpose, but as a last resort in my opinion. When a Super 
cell is unable to reach the clientel.  But I'd argue many samll 
repeater cells is a better way to go, so reliabilty and shortest path 
can be engineered into every site.   When paths from point A to point 
B change automatically, its difficult to loose control of performance 
levels an individual may have at one point in time over another. QOS 
is near impossible to guarantee on MESH. I look at MESH as a Best 
effort service, and it should be deployed only when thatlevel of 
service isrequired. Reliability and QOS is all about creating shortest 
number of hops, with most direct solid links.  Just my opinion. We'll 
see what the Muni Mesh network brings to the table after their many 
future case studies to come.  Its the Mesh companies that are the ones 
pushing it,and in their eye.  The reason has to do with assets not 
technology.  Muni's don;t own the roof tops and towers. They own the 
street poles.  Mesh works from the Street poles. MESH is a way to 
intiate a project, without third parties getting in the way. The Muni 
controls the assets required for the Technology to pull off its job. 
Its building management companies and owners that control the 
expansion of Broadband in the Super Cell.


I think you may be mixing too many arguments. We are using a fully 
meshed MPLS network for our fiber backbone. Our choice of a mesh 
architecture for our fiber backbone has nothing to do with client 
reachability, politics, vendor's opinions, or anything else outside of 
practical requirements. Our network devices can and do make routing 
decisions on the fly that result in better throughput, lower latency, 
and better QoS than traditional star and ring architectures can achieve. 
Understand that every major ISP is now either running a fully meshed 
MPLS network or has plans to migrate to one.


Muni has two choices... Go Mesh, or partner with the Local WISP, that 
already own the rights to the roof tops and spectrum, toguarantee 
quick progress.  There are some exceptions to this, as many Muni's 
control water towers, if they are strategically located.


I don't think Muni choices whatever they are should have anything to do 
with an technical discussion regarding the merits of mesh as a network 
architecture.


-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] Canopy distributors

[Matt Liotta]

We continually find ourselves having to call around the country trying 
to find inventory. We'd prefer just to have a single distributor fulfill 
all our orders, but we expect the equipment to be stocked. It seems to 
me distributors don't provide any value if all they do is process orders 
and drop ship the equipment.


Any recommendations from the list for Canopy distributors?

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

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Sales & Marketing of Unlicensed Wireless Services -- Some Observations

[Matt Liotta]

We have observed the following:

It is easier to explain wireless after the fact then to sell wireless 
itself. In other words, we sell a service that provides X amount of 
internet access and Y phone lines that we just happen to deliver 
wirelessly. Once a customer is "sold" on the value of the service it is 
easy to explain the benefits of fixed wireless over copper.


Our "T1" price is lower than the rest of the market, but it is easier 
and more profitable to sell 3Mbps at the market price of a T1 then to 
sell our lower priced "T1" service.


Generally speaking, we have found the cost/time to sell a customer is 
the same no matter how large the service delivered is. In other words, 
it takes just as long to sell a "DS3" as it does a "T1" even though the 
"DS3" is significantly more profitable.


All of the above means that while we are a seemingly large WISP, we 
don't have that many customers; our ARPU is just very high.


-Matt

Charles Wu wrote:


Generally, we end up debating all day and all night on the lists of "what's
the best radio" or "who's got those cool blue lights" -- however, FWIW, I've
noticed that there seldom is any debate on "useful" topics like sales &
marketing (especially of the product positioning of license-exempt wireless)

Do we call it wDSL? Wireless? More than Wifi? WiMAX? -- who knows? But fuel
the fire with a few observations

-

-

ARPU is an acronym for the Average Revenue per User.  This is the average
revenue factored across all customers as if each were charged the same price
-- with some customers charged less and others more.  Customer type usually
determines price.  In addition, a Network Operator's valuation is a direct
multiple of its ARPU. 


The Marginal Recurring Cost (MRC) as compared to its Service Level /
Marginal Recurring Revenue (MRR) of delivering the following license-exempt
broadband wireless "WiMAX" connections have been calculated as follows: 

Broadband "Lite" Residential Service 
(512 / 512 Kb Burstable) 
MRR: $24.95 
MRC: $20


Best Effort Residential Service 
(5 Mb / 512 Kb Burstable) 
MRR: $39.95 
MRC: $20


Best Effort Business Class Service 
(5 Mb / 1 Mb Burstable) 
MRR: $149.95 
MRC: $25


Dedicated Business Class Service 
(5 Mb / 3 Mb Burstable) 
(1 Mb / 1 Mb Dedicated) 
MRR: $249.95 
MRC: $30


Dedicated Business SLA Service 
(5 Mb / 3 Mb Burstable) 
(3 Mb / 3 Mb Dedicated) 
MRR: $449.95 
MRC: $40


Looking at the numbers, it's obvious that a higher ARPU increases the
overall health of the bottom line. 


Interestingly enough, all the following service plans are achieved using the
EXACT SAME license-exempt broadband wireless access technology.  So why is
the differentiating factor that allows some WISPs to sell that
Canopy/Trango/Alvarion/whatever last mile connection for $300+ month ARPU
while other can barely get $30 / month ARPU?

IT'S OBVIOUSLY MORE THAN "JUST" TECHNOLOGY... 


-

-

-Charles

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




 



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Sales & Marketing of Unlicensed Wireless Services -- SomeObservations

[Matt Liotta]

Mark Koskenmaki wrote:


I'd rather just bundle a VOIP service in a higher level tier (let's move
from 38 / mo to 55 or 60/mo ) of service, but needs to be affordable for me
to do.   Still, nobody's offering this kind of service, that I can find.
Either it is sold as raw products (requiring me to build a whole VOIP system
for my customers use) or as higher than retail priced "wholesale" programs.

 

Maybe you stumbled upon the fact that no one offers what you want 
because it isn't cost effective to do so. As much as we try to wholesale 
our VoIP offers to other WISPs, they want their cake and eat it too. 
Being an ISP or for that matter a VoIP provider requires either relying 
on others' infrastructure, making thin margins, and making it up in 
volume or building out your own infrastructure and making great margins. 
There really is no in-between.


-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Sales & Marketing of Unlicensed Wireless Services --SomeObservations

[Matt Liotta]

VoIP is the future and while it is currently profitable, I don't think 
it will be long-term. I expect long-term telephone service as we know it 
will be free. In the mean time, VoIP sells data better than almost 
anything else.


-Matt

Mark Koskenmaki wrote:


If that's the case, then VOIP has no future.   If there's no profit to be
made in it, then what's everyone jumping on it for?




North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
personal correspondence to:  mark at neofast dot net
sales inquiries to:  purchasing at neofast dot net
Fast Internet, NO WIRES!

-
- Original Message - 
From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sales & Marketing of Unlicensed Wireless
Services --SomeObservations


 


Mark Koskenmaki wrote:

   


I'd rather just bundle a VOIP service in a higher level tier (let's move
 


from 38 / mo to 55 or 60/mo ) of service, but needs to be affordable for
   


me
 


to do.   Still, nobody's offering this kind of service, that I can find.
Either it is sold as raw products (requiring me to build a whole VOIP
 


system
 


for my customers use) or as higher than retail priced "wholesale"
 


programs.
 



 


Maybe you stumbled upon the fact that no one offers what you want
because it isn't cost effective to do so. As much as we try to wholesale
our VoIP offers to other WISPs, they want their cake and eat it too.
Being an ISP or for that matter a VoIP provider requires either relying
on others' infrastructure, making thin margins, and making it up in
volume or building out your own infrastructure and making great margins.
There really is no in-between.

-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



 



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Sales & Marketing of Unlicensed Wireless Services --Some Observations

[Matt Liotta]

Charles Wu wrote:


I would disagree with you on the above statement
IMO, I've found that the SMB service offering (e.g., sub-T1 to 3xT1) plans
seem to be the most profitable (highest margin) opportunities available
Once you get to "carrier services" (e.g., 10+ Mb) -- the big guys start to
take notice and completely drop their pants

 

You can disagree with the statement, but you should accept that it is 
true in our case.


-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Sales & Marketing of Unlicensed Wireless Services--SomeObservations

[Matt Liotta]

You seem to making the assumption that the services you are comparing 
are the same. In our case, our VoIP provides significantly better 
quality than offered by Vonage. Further, we can actually support fax, 
which tons of VoIP providers fall down on including Vonage. Thus, I 
don't have to offer retail voice at the same price as Vonage.


Customers are stupid unless they want to be. Explain how relying upon 
VoIP over the internet will likely result in poor quality and compare 
that with a VoIP service controlled by the owner of the network. If you 
control the entire network from the CPE to your softswitch then outside 
of incompetence, the Vonages of the world can't compete.


-Matt

Mark Koskenmaki wrote:

- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 7:46 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Sales & Marketing of Unlicensed Wireless
Services--SomeObservations


 



I desperately need a GOOD VOIP wholesale deal, where I own the customer
   


and
 


do frontline support, it's my own brand (if I brand it) and I merely  bulk
buy minutes, numbers, and CPE.I can't sell my customers a 400 minute
account that costs me 25 bucks a month.  They can buy Packet8 for less
   


than
 


most resell deals.


You're thinking like the "ISP techie" -- e.g., if I'm not better / cheaper
   


/
 


faster...then I can't be in business

Obviously, this isn't how things work
   



Charles, you assume far too much.   This is Mark The Businessman talking.

You see, if I can't provide my customers good value for thier money, then I
have no business taking thier money.

It's how I sleep at night and it's my duty to my fellow man.   Maybe some
folks out there will rape the customer for all he can get from him... I
cannot do so in good conscience.

I do not have to be "cheaper".  I have to provide the customer good value
for his money.Darn, that's old fashioned.  My God, it's moralistic.
Heavens, it's totally out of fashion "loyalty to customers"...

Whatever it is, that's how I do business, and if you're here to tell me
"this isn't how things work" then don't waste your breath.I'm not
looking to be the cheapest on earth.   I am NOT the "cheapest" you can get
for broadband where I am.   But I am good value for the money.   And that's
what I want to offer for VOIP service, too.

 


Case in point -- I know of a market that consists of 2 Canopy WISPs -- the
owners / principles of one come from a techie / residential ISP
   


background,
 


and sell wireless broadband connections (various rates of 1 Mb, 2 Mb, 3 Mb
burstable connections) for $29-69 / month

In the same market, the 2nd Canopy WISP has people who come from a carrier
   


/
 


enterprise sales background, and they sell the EXACT SAME WIRELESS
CONNECTION (from a technological standpoint that is, it's still an
unlicensed Motorola SM / AP) for $300-600 / month

Now, it is worth noting that the guys in WISP #2 are 100 lbs overweight,
have grey hair, and wear suits, while the guys in WISP #1 (although in
   


their
 


late 20s now) -- still resemble adolescent college fraternity kids

However, when they first hit the market, I was thinking, jeez, these guys
(WISP #2) are absolutely nuts, they're morons, trying to sell overpriced
@#$@ -- they'll never turn on a customer

Yet consistently, I see guys from WISP #2 outsell guys from WISP #1 in
competitive deals (e.g., customer has a T1 line they're paying $500 /
   


month
 


for, and WISP #1 comes in and tries to sell a 3 Mb connection for $69 --
nothing happens -- 3 months later, WISP #2 comes in and sells a 3 Mb
"dedicated" connection for $600 / month to the same customer)

Go figure...
   



They say "There's a sucker born every minute".   I will not take advantage
of them.

When I reach the end of my life it will not matter if I were rich or poor,
only whether I can face my Maker with a clean conscience.


North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
personal correspondence to:  mark at neofast dot net
sales inquiries to:  purchasing at neofast dot net
Fast Internet, NO WIRES!

-

 


-Charles


---
WiNOG Austin, TX
March 13-15, 2006
http://www.winog.com



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 5:09 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sales & Marketing of Unlicensed Wireless Services
--SomeObservations


Quote:  "> IT'S OBVIOUSLY MORE THAN "JUST" TECHNOLOGY... "

yes, it is.   More to the point, it's about meeting your customer's needs
   


or
 


wants.

Not shoving things at them they don't need or want, but genuinely
discovering what it is that sparks them to buy in the first place.



I'd rather just bundle a VOIP service in a higher level tier (let's move
from 38 / mo to 55 or 60/mo ) of service, b

Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

[Matt Liotta]

Tom DeReggi wrote:

Trie I did not offer any backup data. But use your immagination. Its 
all in one place, easy to check, easy to document, easy to configure, 
easy to backup, etc.

What does mesh offer for better complete central management?

You seem to be suggesting that I simply haven't looked for information 
to back up your argument. Not sure why that makes sense to you. Anyway, 
I am not making arguments based upon information I read somewhere. My 
company operates a very large network that makes use of mesh, star, and 
ring network architectures. Some of it is fiber-based, while other parts 
are wireless. We are a highly technical, but practical company. In other 
words, we do a vast amount of research before doing field trials. After 
we are satisfied that the technical works in the field the way we expect 
and ultimately want, only then do we deploy it. I can make intelligent 
statements in regard to mesh because of this. It doesn't appear you have 
done nearly the research we have and it doesn't appear you have any 
significant mesh deployments. I suggest you field trial the technology 
in a meaningful way before dismissing it.


In regard to your actual question, I would request that you be more 
specific. We manage all of our network devices centrally using SNMP 
regardless if they are mesh or not.



> I think you may be mixing too many arguments.

I may be mixing up typical deployment models using MESH with MESH 
Technology.

It also depends on your definition of MESH.


Cisco defines a mesh network as a communications network having two or 
more paths to any node. I would agree with that definition. How would 
you define mesh?


I admit, I made a generalization of a typical way MESH would be 
deployed, in my arguements.
Deployed at street level, so many short hops were required to get 
coverage and get around NLOS obstacles, in a dense city environment.


That may be true if the mesh didn't have any dedicated backhauls. We 
using P2MP systems to backhaul our mesh, which allows us to limit the 
number of hops of any one particular path.


A network that made its own intelligent routing decissions, that may 
not always be the most intelligent compared to the human mind's 
decissions.


Meshs don't have to make their own routing decisions. You can statically 
route a mesh if you want to. I don't think I will agree that a human is 
better suited to the job though.


But is that really MESH? Technically you could call any multi-path 
routed network, MESH. I call my network a routed network using 
triangulation.
But I would not call it MESH. But it very well could be considered 
similar to MESH.


Our industry peers use the term mesh in this context, so it appears 
quite appropriate.


What criteria does your network OS sue to deterine routing changes? 
Measure highest packet loss? measure most amount of available 
bandwdith? Measure least amount of average bandwidth? Measure shortest 
path? Lowest latency? Lowest cost ($) transit or transport provider 
path? And how many can they consider togeather to make the best 
overall decission?
I'd be interested in hearing more about what you are doing with MPLS 
in your design.


MPLS traffic engineering allows you to use any number of combinations of 
criteria. In fact, Cisco sells whole books on this very subject.


Also understand this is a Wireless list, not a fiber list. The design 
flaws of MESH over fiber (fast packet-loss less links) is a completely 
different animal with different challenges than MESH in Wireless.


I disagree. While there are certainly important differences between 
fiber and wireless, network architecture wish the communication medium 
is generally less important.


I recognize that MESH is at a new stage of being more than just the 
implementation of RIP2. (Allthough early MESH was not much more than 
RIP).


Tropos's implementation certainly doesn't fit that description and they 
have been around from the early days of wireless mesh.


Thats a very bold statement, that is not true. However, that does not 
mean I do not recognize the benefits of the advanced design of MPLS 
networks.


What do you mean it isn't true. Of course it is! Name one tier 1 ISP 
that doesn't have an MPLS network or is working on having one.


How do you figure? I sure hope the network design that was getting 
proposed, was something they would take the time to evaluate, in 
making their decissions.
Anyone would look at there assets to locate gear, and consider that 
into their design. Thats step 1 of any wireless network design.


We consider mesh for its technical merits and this thread started in 
that regard. We have nothing to do with munis and yet we do a good deal 
of mesh. It seems very simple that mesh as a technology and one market 
segment are two separate issues. Discuss muni issues in a non-technical 
thread.


-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Arc

Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

[Matt Liotta]

Tom DeReggi wrote:

No I am not. I am asking you to tell me what you know, so I don't have 
to waste time replicating your research.
Thats the purpose of this list, to exchange knowledge and data. Not 
just making claims, but disclosing why.


I recall in an earlier email you making claims without disclosing why. 
Are we going to debate the debate or mesh?



I never suggest that. And Neither am I.
But no, I do not own a city wide MESH network. I decided against MESH, 
which is why my opinion is biased against MESH.
I can count the total ISPs on one hand that have completed that task 
as of today.
Maybe two Muni's that had been legally allowed to proceed doing a 
large public network.

So my experience level does not lessen my point of view.

Why does the mesh have to be city wide? We haven't nor will we do a city 
wide mesh. We believe mesh is only appropriate in certain pockets of 
geography that allow the economics of mesh to exceed that of P2MP.


Of course you do. Just like most WISPs do. I can't count how many 
single unit Mesh system we had sent to evaluate. Its likely you did 
the same.


We don't do single unit mesh evaluations. What's the point? You can't 
really test a mesh with just a single unit.


As a router operating system manufacturer with protocol level coding 
experience, (but never went to market), we also have a great deal of 
talent on staff, to investigate the trade offs of various 
technologies.  But you have to understand, that sooner or later a WISP 
needs to put the science projects aside, and start making sales, and 
they don't always have time to keep up to date on every latest and 
greatest daily enhancements to a technology, when they've decided on a 
different path to follow. I really don't have time to evaluate every 
manufacturers' Mesh product on a weekly basis to prove right or wrong 
their latest theories in their field.


I am not referring to some science project. We have active mesh 
deployments existing in the field now. Additionally, we are starting 
work next week on two more. One is a Tropos-based mesh, while the other 
is going to be built using some pre-release gear. The later is a mixed 
use development spanning hundreds of acres. That is the kind of scale we 
use to test mesh technology.



It doesn't appear you have done nearly the research we have
 and it doesn't appear you have any significant mesh deployments.


This is NOT a competition to prove who is the smarter technician and 
network designer. I do not claim to be Grand Master MESH. But I am 
more than qualified to carry on intelligent debate on the pros and 
cons of various routing and wireless technologies.


I'm not competing; just waiting for the intelligent debate to begin. You 
have made statements against mesh, but haven't made a single technical 
argument that was backed up by facts, research, or field experience.


I don't disagree with that definition. And technically in the 
dictionary, if it had to be defined, that could be it.  But I feel 
MESH is more of a mindset than a definition.  In practicality and real 
world, that MESH definition is two broad to cover all the many ways of 
implementing MESH. That definition does not define why someone would 
benefit from usingthe technology. I look at MESH as a concept of how 
to better gain coverage to a large number of people and/or 
geographical area, when Line-of-sight to a central or common sources 
are frequently obstructed, which typically requires more radios, 
installed closer togeather, and a method to manage their 
relationships, apposed to defining the way nodes communicate.


You are overloading the term mesh then. You can't take an accepted 
industry term and twist it to mean something else. Mesh is a network 
architecture that is more heavily used in wireline networks than 
wireless networks yet you want to suggest mesh has something to do with 
coverage. Each node in a mesh or each basestation in a P2MP system has 
an associated coverage area. Given a mesh node operating in the same 
spectrum and power output as a P2MP system you would expect a similar 
coverage because the coverage provided by the radios in question is a 
function of spectrum and power not network architecture.


Some people believed in John Henry, some believed in the Steam 
engine.  I agree that the ultimately a computer (or technology) has 
more potential to be better equipped to make those decissions. 
However, today is not that day yet, and I have more confidence in the 
engineer (human).  Not because the computer isn't capable, but because 
the engineer has not yet been proven capable to program the computer 
to be more capable.


Again I disagree. There are a number of large networks where a piece of 
software is used to configure network devices instead of humans 
configuring the devices directly. The same decisions are made by humans 
in either case, but in the former case the software can detect 
configuration issues before they are applied. Humans al

Re: [WISPA] Switch recommendations

[Matt Liotta]

Dell seems to make switches that deliver good performance for the cheap 
price you pay. Whenever we don't need the capabilities of a Cisco 
switch, but want something managable that won't fall down we go with Dell.


-Matt

Pete Davis wrote:

I was wondering what switch has the largest mac address table. I don't 
need more than 6 ports, but the $19.95 cheapy switches that my AP 
Bridges all go into might be hurting my performance, I am thinking. If 
shelling out $100 or so for a good switch makes sense, I am willing to 
get one, but I don't want to spend money where its not needed.


What does the "professional" ISP use?



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

[Matt Liotta]

Here in Atlanta, Metrocom reported that it took 4 times the average 
number of nodes to provide coverage. Technology has changed a good deal 
since then, but then again they were also using 900Mhz, which has a lot 
more success with our pine trees than 2.4Ghz.


-Matt

Brad Larson wrote:


BTW, this is what gets lots of people in trouble. Quoting 16-18 mesh nodes
per square mile may be a correct number in AZ or TX. You may need 3 times
that in my neck of the woods here in NE USA. Even more where interference
shrinks cell sizes. Be cautious John. Brad



-Original Message-
From: John J. Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 2:22 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment


Yes, unfortunately, the Cisco mesh is only using 5.8 for backhaul right now.
Since they recommend 16-18 mesh boxes per square mile, 5.25 GHz and up would
be a much better choice

John


 


-Original Message-
From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 08:41 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

Tom,

You make a very good point that 5.3 GHz should be used wherever possible 
while reserving 5.8 for longer-distance backhauling and supercell use. 
We should all be thinking in terms of using 5.3 whenever we can and 
reserving the higher-power 5.8 authorization for those situations where 
we really, really need it.

  jack

Tom DeReggi wrote:

   

Or realize that everyone in the world is using the precious 5.8Ghz 
spectrum already for long critical links, that are limited to 5.8Ghz for 
PtP rule higher SU antenna, or long distance.
5.3Ghz is an ideal backhaul channel for MESH, up to 7 miles (with 2 ft 
dish), and avoid the interference headaches.  There is now a HUGE range 
of spectrum available at 1 watt, the 5.3G and 5.4Ghz newly allocated 
255Mhzspectrum usable as if this past January.  Design mesh networks to 
utilize these many channel options, avoid interference, and don't 
destroy the industry by unnecessisarilly using the precious 5.8Ghz.  In 
a MESH design its rare to need to go distances longer than 2 miles, all 
within the realm of possibility with low power 5.3G and 5.4G and Omnis 
and relatively small panel antennas.


Likewise, reserve the precious 2.4Ghz for the link to consumer, the 
spectrum supported by their laptops.  I hope to see the industry smart 
enough to use the new 5.4Ghz for MESH type systems, which is one of the 
reasons it was allocated for.


One of the most important tasks for WISPs is to conserve the 5.8Ghz 
spectrum and only use it when needed.  It is in shortage most compared 
to the other ranges. I had hoped and lobbied hard that half of the 
5.4Ghz range would be allowed for higher power and PtP rules, but it had 
not. Its still perfect for mesh and OFDM. Don;t be fooled into believing 
high power is the secret weapon for mesh, as it is not, LOW power is.  
Interference and noise is accumulative and travels for miles around 
corners and obstructions, unlike good RSSI and quality signal.  Get 
better RSSI in MESH, by Reducing self interference and noise, by using a 
wider range of channel selections and lower power.  5.3 and 5.4 gives 
you 350Mhz to select channels from, of equal specification/propertied 
RF.  Design it into your MESH design.  If you can't transport it in 
1watt, redesign radio install locations and density.  Every single 
additional non-inteferring channel selection, drastically logrithmically 
increases the odds of getting a non-interfering channel selection.  5.4G 
is the best thinng that happened to MESH. Unfortuneately, worthless for 
super cell design.  But if MESH embrases 5.4 like it should, it leaves 
5.8Ghz for Super cell.  Otherwise the MESH designer is destined to fail, 
because it will become a battle that the Super Cell guy won't be able to 
give up on until his death, as he has no other option but the range he 
is using.  The mesh provider has options.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband

- Original Message - From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment


 

Unless you expect to handle only very low levels of traffic, avoid 
mesh nodes with only one radio. Choose nodes that have one radio on 
2.4 GHz for customer connections and one radio on 5.8 GHz for 
backhauling. In other words, separate the "access" traffic from the 
"backhaul" traffic. Your overall throughput capability will be many 
times greater.


jack


ISPlists wrote:

   

Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment.  I 
have a small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire 
town and I'm thinking of using mesh technology.  Any ideas would be 
great.

Thanks,
Steve

 


--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Indust

Re: [WISPA] Basic Mesh Theory

[Matt Liotta]

The internet is the largest mesh network in operation today. However, 
there is no comparison to internet routing and redundancy to that of 
private network routing and redundancy. The internet is so huge that 
smart routing decisions can only be made at the edge. With a private 
network, the size is generally manageable enough to make smarter routing 
decisions throughout. Take BGP for instance, which is used to 
dynamically manage routes on the internet. It can take anywhere from 4 
to 10 minutes to fully resolve a route flap when a link goes down. 
Compare that with your average IGP, which takes only seconds to fully 
resolve a route flap.


-Matt

A. Huppenthal wrote:

I haven't read your summary yet, but would like to chime in a bit on 
Mesh...


When the DoD developed TCP/IP, they built it to be robust under 
war-time conditions. This means fault tolerant, rerouting, 
change-over, change-back.


It would wonderful to hear the Mesh scientists (not sales people) 
describe what it is about mesh that gives it an edge over TCP/IP 
protocols, including their routing protocols.


I'll read your notes with some interest, in the hopes they'll shed 
some light on this fundemental question. Else, historically mesh has 
been a crapola of marketing hype, generalizations, and "I have it 
nailed" crap intended to fuel someone's new car or new house, new 
sales organization - and not provide any real customer/network 
operator benefit. In my humble opinion.


I personally have spoken to Microsoft's development leader on Mesh and 
had it explained that dozens of PhD's were working on Mesh solutions 
at MS. Ah, okay, I'm guess Motorola and 10 other companies are doing 
this as well.


Has anyone deployed a TCP/IP network that's fault tolerant - along the 
lines of the DoD's intent for the network? Using 'Mesh' or otherwise.


I'm all ear.



Matt Liotta wrote:

Attached is a quick rundown of basic mesh theory that I put together 
in light of the recent thread. It hasn't been peer reviewed or 
edited, which I would normally do before sharing publicly. But since 
I only wrote because of a thread on this list I figured I would just 
share it. Feel free to pick it apart.


I do want to point out a couple of things though. First, this was 
written in a generic way only covering mesh as a theory. As written 
it can be applied to various transport technologies from fiber to 
wireless; though I do provide an example using wireless P2P links. 
Applying mesh theory to wireless P2MP or ad-hoc networks would 
require special coverage.


-Matt





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Basic Mesh Theory

[Matt Liotta]

The file is attached as RTF.

-Matt

Dustin Jurman wrote:


Hey Matt,

 

It would be nice to see this in a word document or Text based so one 
could add comments to your work. 

 


DSJ

 




*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
*On Behalf Of *Matt Liotta

*Sent:* Sunday, February 26, 2006 2:56 PM
*To:* WISPA General List
*Subject:* [WISPA] Basic Mesh Theory

 

Attached is a quick rundown of basic mesh theory that I put together 
in light of the recent thread. It hasn't been peer reviewed or edited, 
which I would normally do before sharing publicly. But since I only 
wrote because of a thread on this list I figured I would just share 
it. Feel free to pick it apart.


I do want to point out a couple of things though. First, this was 
written in a generic way only covering mesh as a theory. As written it 
can be applied to various transport technologies from fiber to 
wireless; though I do provide an example using wireless P2P links. 
Applying mesh theory to wireless P2MP or ad-hoc networks would require 
special coverage.


-Matt



Title: Index of file:///Users/mliotta/Desktop/Basic Mesh Theory.rtfd/





Index of file:///Users/mliotta/Desktop/Basic Mesh Theory.rtfd/

Up to higher level directory

 TXT.rtf
 6 KB
 2/26/06
 2:44:45 PM


 mesh.jpg
 21 KB
 2/25/06
 7:18:06 AM


 ring.jpg
 14 KB
 2/25/06
 7:09:12 AM


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Basic Mesh Theory

[Matt Liotta]

I used street pricing for the radios in question, but certainly didn't 
cover pricing on any other items that would be required. Coverage area 
wasn't taken into consideration as it has no bearing on topology.


-Matt

Dawn wrote:


Matt,
Are these actual costs?
What is the coverage area?

Thanks,
Dawn


Matt Liotta wrote:

Attached is a quick rundown of basic mesh theory that I put together 
in light of the recent thread. It hasn't been peer reviewed or 
edited, which I would normally do before sharing publicly. But since 
I only wrote because of a thread on this list I figured I would just 
share it. Feel free to pick it apart.


I do want to point out a couple of things though. First, this was 
written in a generic way only covering mesh as a theory. As written 
it can be applied to various transport technologies from fiber to 
wireless; though I do provide an example using wireless P2P links. 
Applying mesh theory to wireless P2MP or ad-hoc networks would 
require special coverage.


-Matt



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: 2/24/2006
 



---
---



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Basic Mesh Theory

[Matt Liotta]

My example used wireless P2P links, which has no inherent weakness over 
fiber P2P links from a topology point-of-view. It would appear you are 
falling into the same trap as others by forcing mesh to be something it 
is not. Mesh is just a network topology; no more, no less. Sure it is 
possible to come up with specific examples of wireless-based mesh 
networks being terrible ideas, but that doesn't mean there is anything 
wrong with mesh itself. I would argue that in almost all cases the 
topology is not what is at fault.


-Matt

Jeromie Reeves wrote:

There is a very big difference from fiber mesh and wireless mesh. 
Wireless is classicly a bunch of HDX links
where fiber is PtP links. Your example doesnt make it clear that the 
difference is what cause's 802.11[a|b|g]
mesh "suck" and fiber/copper mesh's "not suck". The solution is multi 
radio units that can select peers based
on more then just essid (channel, hop count to the edge, packet loss, 
ect)


Jeromie

Matt Liotta wrote:

Attached is a quick rundown of basic mesh theory that I put together 
in light of the recent thread. It hasn't been peer reviewed or 
edited, which I would normally do before sharing publicly. But since 
I only wrote because of a thread on this list I figured I would just 
share it. Feel free to pick it apart.


I do want to point out a couple of things though. First, this was 
written in a generic way only covering mesh as a theory. As written 
it can be applied to various transport technologies from fiber to 
wireless; though I do provide an example using wireless P2P links. 
Applying mesh theory to wireless P2MP or ad-hoc networks would 
require special coverage.


-Matt






--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Basic Mesh Theory

[Matt Liotta]

Jack Unger wrote:

You raise some good points... and here are some more differences 
between Matt's fully-meshed WIRED network example and the real-world 
conditions under which WIRELESS mesh networks are so often deployed 
today.


My example actually used wireless P2P links, although it was meant to 
apply just as well to other mediums.


1) REROUTING - Only a node failure or a high peak traffic load would 
normally force a routing path change on a fiber/copper network. On a 
wireless mesh, routing path changes will also result from interference 
caused by other same-network nodes, interference from other networks, 
and interference from other wireless non-network sources. Routing path 
changes will also be caused by the movement of obstructions and other 
rf-reflective objects such as trees and vehicles.


Rerouting occurs regularly with a mesh wired network due to load 
balancing and QoS concerns. Although, I would agree with you that in a 
more traditional ring topology, rerouting would only occur on a node 
failure or overload with a wired network. I would also like to point out 
that someone of the issues you raise generally only occur on 
street-level networks. Using a wireless mesh network on rooftops or 
towers avoids many of the issues you raised. At the same time, many mesh 
vendors now use layer2 metrics such as rssi, signal to noise ratio, and 
RF frame errors in addition to layer3 metrics to select the best path. I 
believe these layer2 metrics are required for a proper street-level network.


2. CAPACITY - Fiber/copper networks typically start out with 
high-capacity (compared to wireless) full-duplex links. Wireless mesh 
networks start out with low-capacity half-duplex links.


What capacity any network starts with is up to folks deploying it and is 
not a function of medium.


3. CONNECTIVITY - Fiber/copper mesh network nodes have two or more 
paths to other nodes. "Real-world" wireless mesh networks may contain 
nodes that, in some cases (the traditional "mesh" definition not 
withstanding) only have a path to one other node. For example, 
obstructions may block paths to all but one (or even no) other nodes.


I believe almost any real-world network is going to have paths that 
aren't protected. For example, we have a building that served by a 
single fiber path because it is not economically to have diversity at 
that particular building. Every other building we have on fiber is 
connected via diverse paths.


4. ENGINEERING - Fiber/copper mesh networks are typically properly 
engineered for traffic-carrying capacity, QoS, latency, etc. 
"Real-world" wireless mesh networks are typically deployed in 
near-total ignorance of the Layer 1 (wireless layer) conditions. 
That's the great attraction (IMHO) of  muni-mesh networking today. 
These networks are thrown up in the belief that they don't need any 
Layer 1 design or engineering expertise and that this will allow for 
quick, widespread deployment. Last time I looked however, there was 
still "no free lunch". I predict that the muni
mesh networks that are "thrown up" today (Philadelphia will be a prime 
example, unless it's re-engineered correctly) will fail and fail 
miserably to meet the high expectations that have been raised like 
free or low-cost broadband for all. In addition, muni mesh networks 
today typically lack adequate traffic engineering and performance 
testing under load.


I believe you are entirely correct. However, that doesn't mean that a 
WISP can't properly engineer a mesh network. I would suggest the above 
is no different than folks stringing a bunch of Ethernet hubs together 
and expecting their LAN to work correctly.


I'm not saying that wireless mesh networks should never be used. There 
are certain (obstructed, short-link, low capacity) environments where 
they will be the best, most economical solution. I'm just saying that 
the false claims and marketing hype surrounding MOST (and let me 
repeat, MOST) of today's mesh networking claims, particularly mesh 
network nodes that contain just a single 2.4 GHz radio are going to 
come back to bite both the vendors and the cities that deploy these 
networks without sufficient wireless knowledge in the false belief 
that wireless mesh networks are just "plug-and-play".


Interestingly, Tropos the current poster child of wireless mesh networks 
is a single radio product, but all of their large networks have nodes 
backhauled by fixed wireless. In a sense, this means those networks are 
not based on a single radio. In fact, some market argue that using 
Canopy for backhauling Tropos --as is the case of Philadelphia-- is a 
better solution than to use an 802.11-based radio for backhaul like the 
multi-radio mesh network vendors do.


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

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

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

Re: [WISPA] VoIP/PBX Gateway appliance

[Matt Liotta]

Primus/Lingo is calling every WISP in the country trying to sign them up 
for a very CommPartners like deal. All of these VoIP providers are using 
the same shitty model that will be worthless in 2 years time. There is 
no money to be made in VoIP short-term unless you operate your own 
equipment. Long-term, there is no money to be made in VoIP at all. VoIP 
will soon be a loss leader; plan for it or do get into the VoIP business.


BTW, Primus makes all their money on international termination. The 
domestic stuff is losing money hand over fist.


-Matt

John Scrivner wrote:

Primus tells me they are more than a VOIP company and that they do 
make money. They impressed me in my dealings with them. Can you share 
more about your information about Primus? I have a big interest in 
knowing anything I can about them right now.

Thanks,
Scriv


Peter R. wrote:


You haven't seen it yet, because Lingo is not profitable yet.
Primus owns Lingo and Primus is basically an International VOIP company.

Like so many VOIP Providers, they are still trying to figure out how 
to make a profit.


Delta3 (which is the backend for VZ's VoiceWing) made $9.1M in 
revenue in 4Q05 and just $22k in income.


Vonage has a customer acquisition cost that is 20 times their MRC.

Regards,

Peter


Jonathan Schmidt wrote:


I've been personally delighted with two years of Lingo giving me
unlimited USA/Canada/EUROPE calling on 7 lines each for $19.95/month
and an unusually rich set of features (like e-mailing me compressed WAV
files of all incoming voicemails, etc.).
 
Now, that's retail w/box and support.
 
I've taken the box on trips and routed it through my laptop Ethernet 
while
the laptop is on a V.32 dialup and it works but sounds kind of like 
a cell

phone but having my local number with me in Europe and having unlimited
free calls throughout Europe from Europe or Eastern Europe for ZERO
additional cost is kinda cool.
 
It's SIP but they keep promising a soft phone for the line, like 
Vonaga, but

haven't seen it yet.
 
. . . j o n a t h a n






--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] VoIP/PBX Gateway appliance

[Matt Liotta]

Quite simply, VoIP will be free in the long run. Use it to sell 
bandwidth or what have you, but don't plan on profiting from it directly 
outside of specific niches such as call centers. We have provisioned 
hundreds of phone numbers and sold hundreds of phone lines, but our 
actual monthly cost for providing the service outside of equipment, 
bandwidth, and other overhead is around $200 per month. With that kind 
of expense we could give away service as a loss leader and not even 
notice it. Do you think we are alone?


We own the network, so VoIP is easy and cheap to provide our customers. 
This is not the case for the Vonages of the world.


-Matt

Jason Hensley wrote:

For someone like me who is currently looking at getting into the VoIP 
business, why is it that you feel VoIP will be a long-term loser?  I 
have just started my research into what it will take to provide this 
so I'm a little behind on it, but I'm definately interested in all 
opinions and options.


Thanks!



- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP/PBX Gateway appliance


Primus/Lingo is calling every WISP in the country trying to sign them 
up for a very CommPartners like deal. All of these VoIP providers are 
using the same shitty model that will be worthless in 2 years time. 
There is no money to be made in VoIP short-term unless you operate 
your own equipment. Long-term, there is no money to be made in VoIP 
at all. VoIP will soon be a loss leader; plan for it or do get into 
the VoIP business.


BTW, Primus makes all their money on international termination. The 
domestic stuff is losing money hand over fist.


-Matt

John Scrivner wrote:

Primus tells me they are more than a VOIP company and that they do 
make money. They impressed me in my dealings with them. Can you 
share more about your information about Primus? I have a big 
interest in knowing anything I can about them right now.

Thanks,
Scriv


Peter R. wrote:


You haven't seen it yet, because Lingo is not profitable yet.
Primus owns Lingo and Primus is basically an International VOIP 
company.


Like so many VOIP Providers, they are still trying to figure out 
how to make a profit.


Delta3 (which is the backend for VZ's VoiceWing) made $9.1M in 
revenue in 4Q05 and just $22k in income.


Vonage has a customer acquisition cost that is 20 times their MRC.

Regards,

Peter


Jonathan Schmidt wrote:


I've been personally delighted with two years of Lingo giving me
unlimited USA/Canada/EUROPE calling on 7 lines each for $19.95/month
and an unusually rich set of features (like e-mailing me 
compressed WAV

files of all incoming voicemails, etc.).
 Now, that's retail w/box and support.
 I've taken the box on trips and routed it through my laptop 
Ethernet while
the laptop is on a V.32 dialup and it works but sounds kind of 
like a cell
phone but having my local number with me in Europe and having 
unlimited

free calls throughout Europe from Europe or Eastern Europe for ZERO
additional cost is kinda cool.
 It's SIP but they keep promising a soft phone for the line, like 
Vonaga, but

haven't seen it yet.
 . . . j o n a t h a n







--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] VoIP/PBX Gateway appliance

[Matt Liotta]

My understanding is that many rural markets can be accessed using tandem 
PRIs. For example, using tandems in GA I can get access numbers for the 
entire state with only 10 actual circuits. Though, each circuit can only 
handle 23 incoming calls at once, so to support a large user base it 
would require many more circuits. But, just get started providing 
service to the entire state all I need is 10 circuits. Therefore, it 
will only be a matter of time before even rural areas have access 
numbers from VoIP providers.


In the mean time, by all means get a PRI from a local CLEC and start 
selling VoIP. If you get good enough at it, you can even start selling 
routes to other VoIP providers; that is our plan for rural GA.


-Matt

Jason Hensley wrote:

What about for those of us in small markets where the large VoIP 
players don't have access numbers?  What is your opinion on them 
coming here?  For instance, I'm in an area where the closest VoIP 
provider's number is 100 miles away with probably 25 or so NXX's that 
cannot call it locally.  Not a feasible decision for a local business 
as any phone calls to them will be long distance for local residents.  
Is there a case for or against partnering / working with a CLEC who 
has the ability to be WAY more flexible than the ILEC's, have them 
drop you DS1's / PRI's / whatever and work with them on getting local 
VoIP numbers for the folks in these areas?  I'm getting more and more 
people who want wireless Internet SOLELY because they do not have a 
home phone line other than their cell phone.  Do you see that as what 
we're headed to?  I do and I don't personally.  I think there will be 
a market of some kind for that, but I feel as well that for at least 
the foreseeable future (say 10 years or so), markets such as mine will 
not be doing away with wireline.  Too many challenges for both 
cellular providers, and WISP's due to terrain and sparseness of 
population.


I guess I'm having a hard time understanding why it cannot be 
profitable, at least on some level.





- Original Message - From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP/PBX Gateway appliance


Quite simply, VoIP will be free in the long run. Use it to sell 
bandwidth or what have you, but don't plan on profiting from it 
directly outside of specific niches such as call centers. We have 
provisioned hundreds of phone numbers and sold hundreds of phone 
lines, but our actual monthly cost for providing the service outside 
of equipment, bandwidth, and other overhead is around $200 per month. 
With that kind of expense we could give away service as a loss leader 
and not even notice it. Do you think we are alone?


We own the network, so VoIP is easy and cheap to provide our 
customers. This is not the case for the Vonages of the world.


-Matt

Jason Hensley wrote:

For someone like me who is currently looking at getting into the 
VoIP business, why is it that you feel VoIP will be a long-term 
loser?  I have just started my research into what it will take to 
provide this so I'm a little behind on it, but I'm definately 
interested in all opinions and options.


Thanks!



- Original Message - From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP/PBX Gateway appliance


Primus/Lingo is calling every WISP in the country trying to sign 
them up for a very CommPartners like deal. All of these VoIP 
providers are using the same shitty model that will be worthless in 
2 years time. There is no money to be made in VoIP short-term 
unless you operate your own equipment. Long-term, there is no money 
to be made in VoIP at all. VoIP will soon be a loss leader; plan 
for it or do get into the VoIP business.


BTW, Primus makes all their money on international termination. The 
domestic stuff is losing money hand over fist.


-Matt

John Scrivner wrote:

Primus tells me they are more than a VOIP company and that they do 
make money. They impressed me in my dealings with them. Can you 
share more about your information about Primus? I have a big 
interest in knowing anything I can about them right now.

Thanks,
Scriv


Peter R. wrote:


You haven't seen it yet, because Lingo is not profitable yet.
Primus owns Lingo and Primus is basically an International VOIP 
company.


Like so many VOIP Providers, they are still trying to figure out 
how to make a profit.


Delta3 (which is the backend for VZ's VoiceWing) made $9.1M in 
revenue in 4Q05 and just $22k in income.


Vonage has a customer acquisition cost that is 20 times their MRC.

Regards,

Peter


Jonathan Schmidt wrote:


I've been personally delighted with two years of Lingo giving me
unlimited USA/Canada/EUROPE calling on 7 lines each for

Re: [WISPA] VoIP/PBX Gateway appliance

[Matt Liotta]

In our case, the most expense part of our VoIP deployment was getting 
our network ready to support it correctly. Whether the backend is 
outsourced doesn't affect the requirement to support end-to-end QoS. 
Therefore, I believe that you should either get in all the way or not at 
all.


The worst thing in the world you could do is bundle a 3rd party service 
that doesn't work very well and then because it is outsourced not be 
able to fix it.


-Matt

Tom DeReggi wrote:


MAtt,

I agree with you on most of your comments.
However, there is more to it.

Offering VOIP is not just about making money on it. Its about 
controlling who has access to your subscribers, if one does not have 
the time to be a VOIP provider themselves.
Bundling is a necessarily part of succeeding going  in to the future.  
Its more important that ever to outsource VOIP, if it will likely 
never be a profitable business. let someone else loose the money, and 
reap the rewards of bundling today.  Give the companies access to your 
clients that will be the lowest threat.


What benefit is it to allow, Vonage, ATT, Comcast, Verizon access to 
your client base, by allowing your subscribers to choose their VOIP 
options?


So Matt, I agree if the ISP/WISP intends to make significant money on 
the service, build your own.  But don't knock the Primus/CommPartner 
models, they have their purpose and will enable many WISPs/ISPs to 
have an option to offer, that don;t have the resources to build their 
own.


What this industry needs to recognize is that there are industry 
trends that are going to gain market share, because consumers demand 
them and are willing to buy. They don't care who makes or looses 
money, they jsut know how to compare retail price they pay to the 
quality the receive.  JUst like Muni broadband, its a reality of 
something that is going to happen.  So my point is, pick the companies 
that you want to help succeed, and which ones you want to help NOT 
succeed, because some of them ARE going to succeed.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP/PBX Gateway appliance


Primus/Lingo is calling every WISP in the country trying to sign them 
up for a very CommPartners like deal. All of these VoIP providers are 
using the same shitty model that will be worthless in 2 years time. 
There is no money to be made in VoIP short-term unless you operate 
your own equipment. Long-term, there is no money to be made in VoIP 
at all. VoIP will soon be a loss leader; plan for it or do get into 
the VoIP business.


BTW, Primus makes all their money on international termination. The 
domestic stuff is losing money hand over fist.


-Matt

John Scrivner wrote:

Primus tells me they are more than a VOIP company and that they do 
make money. They impressed me in my dealings with them. Can you 
share more about your information about Primus? I have a big 
interest in knowing anything I can about them right now.

Thanks,
Scriv


Peter R. wrote:


You haven't seen it yet, because Lingo is not profitable yet.
Primus owns Lingo and Primus is basically an International VOIP 
company.


Like so many VOIP Providers, they are still trying to figure out 
how to make a profit.


Delta3 (which is the backend for VZ's VoiceWing) made $9.1M in 
revenue in 4Q05 and just $22k in income.


Vonage has a customer acquisition cost that is 20 times their MRC.

Regards,

Peter


Jonathan Schmidt wrote:


I've been personally delighted with two years of Lingo giving me
unlimited USA/Canada/EUROPE calling on 7 lines each for $19.95/month
and an unusually rich set of features (like e-mailing me 
compressed WAV

files of all incoming voicemails, etc.).
 Now, that's retail w/box and support.
 I've taken the box on trips and routed it through my laptop 
Ethernet while
the laptop is on a V.32 dialup and it works but sounds kind of 
like a cell
phone but having my local number with me in Europe and having 
unlimited

free calls throughout Europe from Europe or Eastern Europe for ZERO
additional cost is kinda cool.
 It's SIP but they keep promising a soft phone for the line, like 
Vonaga, but

haven't seen it yet.
 . . . j o n a t h a n







--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] VoIP/PBX Gateway appliance

[Matt Liotta]

E-911 is THE issue to solve for everyone. No matter who you get E-911 
from, the local ILEC is actually providing the service using outdated 
and expensive equipment. Until that changes things won't get better.


-Matt

Peter R. wrote:


Because Vonage et al, sell Resi VOIP cheaper than TDM Voice.
Why? Easier to market. Easier to take orders (notice I did not say sell?)
But termination will be going up (already seeing rising costs for 
Dedicated LD).

E-911 is not cheap (nor is it nationally available).

You can try to work with a friendly CLEC (or become one).
But Voice is way different from Data.
One bad 911 and you are being sued and possibly jailed.
Wouldn't you rather offer services that aren't competing against the 
growing monster?
You would be better off selling cellular for a residual than selling 
VOIP.


Vonage was going to IPO last year for $660M; this year they are 
looking for $220M


In 1Q05:
"Vonage Holdings Corp. Founded in 2001, the Edison (N.J.) provider of 
Internet phone service has raised $210 million and last year racked up 
about $100 million in revenue. It has spent enough on marketing in a 
bid to make itself a household name, and several VCs say it will go 
public this year or next. But critics complain that while its ads 
attract new customers, it doesn't retain as many as it should."


"Om says Vonage IPO. I don't think they can wait. Reports are their 
growth is slowing, that costs are rising and that founder Jeffrey 
Citron has a bundle of his own cash in the venture."


In  2006: /"The street writes: Vonage Holdings, moved to become the 
first major Internet telephony player to go public by filing Wednesday 
to raise up to $250 million via an initial offering of stock and named 
a Tyco International executive as CEO. Our revenues were $18.7million 
in 2003, $79.7million in 2004, and $174.0 million for the nine months 
ended Sept. 30, 2005," the company's prospectus says."While our 
revenues have grown rapidly, we have experienced increasing net 
losses, primarily driven by our increase in marketing expenses. From 
the period of inception through Sept.30, 2005, our cumulative net loss 
was $310 million. Our net loss for the nine months ended Sept.30, 
2005, was $189.6million. During the same nine-month period, our 
marketing expenses were $176.3million."/




Jason Hensley wrote:

What about for those of us in small markets where the large VoIP 
players don't have access numbers?  What is your opinion on them 
coming here?  For instance, I'm in an area where the closest VoIP 
provider's number is 100 miles away with probably 25 or so NXX's that 
cannot call it locally.  Not a feasible decision for a local business 
as any phone calls to them will be long distance for local 
residents.  Is there a case for or against partnering / working with 
a CLEC who has the ability to be WAY more flexible than the ILEC's, 
have them drop you DS1's / PRI's / whatever and work with them on 
getting local VoIP numbers for the folks in these areas?  I'm getting 
more and more people who want wireless Internet SOLELY because they 
do not have a home phone line other than their cell phone.  Do you 
see that as what we're headed to?  I do and I don't personally.  I 
think there will be a market of some kind for that, but I feel as 
well that for at least the foreseeable future (say 10 years or so), 
markets such as mine will not be doing away with wireline.  Too many 
challenges for both cellular providers, and WISP's due to terrain and 
sparseness of population.


I guess I'm having a hard time understanding why it cannot be 
profitable, at least on some level.





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] VoIP/PBX Gateway appliance

[Matt Liotta]

The notion of avoiding toll costs by working with other WISPs sounds 
great in theory. From our standpoint, it would cost us more to connect 
to a single WISP than to pay our entire long distance bill. We pay 
between $0.002 to $0.005 per minute on average for domestic long distance.


-Matt

Mac Dearman wrote:


I agree with that bit of advice whole heartedly Matt!

 We are in the process of setting up our own VoIP solution as we 
speak. I think that by the time that 100 of us WISPs get into our own 
VoIP offerings we can allow access from the other WISPs PRI's...etc 
for PSTN access to limit the amount of LD charges if their is availble 
access from a fellow WISP...etc


I think everyone of us need to be in our own VoIP business!! I have 
even given thought to a Coop kind of deal, but I need to have some 
more beer and thoughts on that :-)



Mac Dearman
Maximum Access, LLC.
Authorized Barracuda Reseller
MikroTik RouterOS Certified
www.inetsouth.com
www.mac-tel.us
www.RadioResponse.org (Katrina Relief)
Rayville, La.
318.728.8600
318.303.4228
318.303.4229





- Original Message - From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 1:21 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP/PBX Gateway appliance


In our case, the most expense part of our VoIP deployment was getting 
our network ready to support it correctly. Whether the backend is 
outsourced doesn't affect the requirement to support end-to-end QoS. 
Therefore, I believe that you should either get in all the way or not 
at all.


The worst thing in the world you could do is bundle a 3rd party 
service that doesn't work very well and then because it is outsourced 
not be able to fix it.


-Matt

Tom DeReggi wrote:


MAtt,

I agree with you on most of your comments.
However, there is more to it.

Offering VOIP is not just about making money on it. Its about 
controlling who has access to your subscribers, if one does not have 
the time to be a VOIP provider themselves.
Bundling is a necessarily part of succeeding going  in to the 
future. Its more important that ever to outsource VOIP, if it will 
likely never be a profitable business. let someone else loose the 
money, and reap the rewards of bundling today.  Give the companies 
access to your clients that will be the lowest threat.


What benefit is it to allow, Vonage, ATT, Comcast, Verizon access to 
your client base, by allowing your subscribers to choose their VOIP 
options?


So Matt, I agree if the ISP/WISP intends to make significant money 
on the service, build your own.  But don't knock the 
Primus/CommPartner models, they have their purpose and will enable 
many WISPs/ISPs to have an option to offer, that don;t have the 
resources to build their own.


What this industry needs to recognize is that there are industry 
trends that are going to gain market share, because consumers demand 
them and are willing to buy. They don't care who makes or looses 
money, they jsut know how to compare retail price they pay to the 
quality the receive. JUst like Muni broadband, its a reality of 
something that is going to happen.  So my point is, pick the 
companies that you want to help succeed, and which ones you want to 
help NOT succeed, because some of them ARE going to succeed.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP/PBX Gateway appliance


Primus/Lingo is calling every WISP in the country trying to sign 
them up for a very CommPartners like deal. All of these VoIP 
providers are using the same shitty model that will be worthless in 
2 years time. There is no money to be made in VoIP short-term 
unless you operate your own equipment. Long-term, there is no money 
to be made in VoIP at all. VoIP will soon be a loss leader; plan 
for it or do get into the VoIP business.


BTW, Primus makes all their money on international termination. The 
domestic stuff is losing money hand over fist.


-Matt

John Scrivner wrote:

Primus tells me they are more than a VOIP company and that they do 
make money. They impressed me in my dealings with them. Can you 
share more about your information about Primus? I have a big 
interest in knowing anything I can about them right now.

Thanks,
Scriv


Peter R. wrote:


You haven't seen it yet, because Lingo is not profitable yet.
Primus owns Lingo and Primus is basically an International VOIP 
company.


Like so many VOIP Providers, they are still trying to figure out 
how to make a profit.


Delta3 (which is the backend for VZ's VoiceWing) made $9.1M in 
revenue in 4Q05 and just $22k in income.


Vonage has a customer acquisition cost that is 20 times their MRC.

Regards,

Peter


Jonathan Schmidt wrote:


I've been personally delighted with two ye

Re: [WISPA] VoIP/PBX Gateway appliance

[Matt Liotta]

Nope

-Matt

Peter R. wrote:


You're a CLEC, right?


Matt Liotta wrote:

The notion of avoiding toll costs by working with other WISPs sounds 
great in theory. From our standpoint, it would cost us more to 
connect to a single WISP than to pay our entire long distance bill. 
We pay between $0.002 to $0.005 per minute on average for domestic 
long distance.


-Matt





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] AT&T merging with BellSouth

[Matt Liotta]

I don't think Qwest is next. Verizon buying out Vodaphone's share of 
Verizon wireless is the next major purchase. From there Verizon will 
probably buy Alltel. Then look for Qwest, Embarq (formerly Sprint), and 
Valor (recently acquired Alltel wireline) to merge.


If you are looking to play the market based on the BellSouth deal, look 
for Lucent and Nortel to be acquired.


-Matt

George Rogato wrote:


Qwest is next.

We all know consolidation is going to continue.

So I went out and bought some Qwest  shares this am.

George

Frank Muto wrote:


NYT/WSJ

AT&T Inc. is nearing the acquisition of BellSouth Corp. for roughly $65
billion, people familiar with the situation said Saturday evening. A 
deal

could be announced as early as Monday, these people said.

Final terms of the deal could not be learned Saturday evening, but these
people said AT&T Inc. would pay a premium for BellSouth shares of at 
least

15%, valuing the company at $36 per share at least, up from its trading
price Friday of $31.46. That would push the total equity value of the 
deal
to at least $65 billion, plus the assumption of an additional $17 
billion of

BellSouth debt.

Spokespeople for BellSouth and AT&T declined to comment.

An AT&T-BellSouth deal would effectively cleave the nation's telecom
services in two, each vertically integrated with a local phone 
operation,
business services, and wireless unit. And it would effectively 
validate the
vision of competition laid out by the government -- one in which 
traditional
telecom firms compete directly against cable operators rather than 
against
each other. The move would give AT&T Inc. sole control over Cingular, 
the

nation's largest wireless operator.

A combination between AT&T and BellSouth could have combined market
capitalization of nearly $160 billion, making AT&T far larger than rival
Verizon. The deal would nonetheless set a showdown between AT&T and 
Verizon,

as the two fight to control wireless, the growth portion of the telecom
business.

It was the steep growth of Cingular -- joint owned by BellSouth and the
former SBC -- that helped push the two firms together, say telecom 
bankers
familiar with the space. As the importance of the wireless business 
grew,
they say, it became inevitable that SBC (which adopted the AT&T name 
just

months ago) would consolidate its position in the South.

Put together, the SBC territory would extend from California to Florida,
north to Illinois and south to Texas. Combining the two companies' 
current

market capitalizations, AT&T would have a market value approaching $150
billion, over 50% greater than Verizon.

AT&T Chairman and Chief Executive Edward Whitacre has made a name for
himself in the telecommunications industry as a serial acquirer.
Mr. Whitacre is able to boast of a string of acquisitions including 
Pacific
Telesis Corp., Ameritech Corp. and Southern New England 
Telecommunications
Corp. But as he nears retirement the market had been anticipating one 
last
hurrah from him; a BellSouth acquisition by AT&T has long been the 
subject

of speculation from analysts, investors and the two companies' rivals.

Still the speedy move to acquire BellSouth came as a surprise so soon 
after

Mr. Whitacre's takeover of AT&T Corp. last fall. His company is just
starting to digest the $16 billion acquisition. The former SBC
Communications Inc. took over AT&T Corp. and adopted the AT&T 
moniker. The
new company dominates nearly every aspect of the industry, from 
high-speed
Internet connections to long-distance phone service, as well as 
wireless.

And Mr. Whitacre now has access to the old
AT&T's enterprise business and world-wide network.

Such a deal would likely prompt howls of protest in some quarters as it
comes on the heels not only of the AT&T-SBC deal but also after Verizon
Communications Inc.'s acquisition of MCI. Those deals were approved with
only a few minor conditions despite concerns they would lead to higher
prices for business customers.
The wave of mergers has dramatically reshaped the telecom industry, 
and a

purchase of BellSouth would further cement the recreation of the old Ma
Bell, which the
government pushed to break up in 1984.

The management of AT&T, which has apparently briefed key senior 
government
officials late last week, appears to be betting that the Bush 
administration
and a Bell-friendly Federal Communications Commission won't raise too 
many

obstacles for such a deal, arguing that the companies serve different
geographic regions and do not currently compete with one another in a
significant way.

Although AT&T and Verizon's last mergers passed both FCC and Justice
Department review with little major problems, the latest proposed 
merger may
face more hurdles. Recent comments by AT&T and BellSouth executives 
about

their intentions to explore new revenue streams from their high-speed
Internet services by introducing two-tier or "premium" service for 
Internet

content providers. Concerns about 

Re: [WISPA] VoIP/PBX Gateway appliance

[Matt Liotta]

We aren't beta testing anything. We have been providing VoIP to our 
customers for over a year now and we do use Asterisk.


-Matt

Victoria wrote:


Matt,

What type VoIP are you beta-testing?

We are currently looking at asterisk, but I am concerned about how many
subscribers I can maintain per PRI. So far the numbers I am getting do not
add up to profitability.  I almost makes more sense to resell another
providers product.

Victoria

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Larsen - Lists
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 3:21 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP/PBX Gateway appliance


I've got working VOIP on my network, beta-tested and ready to roll out but
without e911.  I like VOIP, because I have people subscribing to our service
just so they can get Vonage and ditch their land line - but this whole e911
thing is a fscking nightmare. 


At what point does it make more sense to say screw the 911 and just go
forward?  Aren't there a bunch of VOIP providers out there doing this
already?  The cellcos have bought out their 911 requirements year after 
year.   I sense a court case in the making that will either force 911 
adoption or throw it out for voip carriers.  It is definitely a gray area

right now.



Matt Larsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Tom DeReggi wrote:

 

Revenue: 174.0 million net Loss $189.6million our marketing expenses 
were $176.3million."/
 


Wow.

That would support my arguement that there is no part of the equation 
more valuable than the portion responsible for the unique access to 
the consumer via a verticle sell.


So if I'm a wireless company, and its just thirty seconds to say, 
"would you like a VOIP phone with that broadband service" at order 
time, its worth gold.
Way more than 10-14% commissions.  Should we be paying our wholesale 
VOIP provider only $5 out of the $25 that we charge? Thats what it 
would infer by Vonage's numbers above.

Maybe Vonage should have taken partners more seriously?

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: "Peter R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP/PBX Gateway appliance


   


Because Vonage et al, sell Resi VOIP cheaper than TDM Voice.
Why? Easier to market. Easier to take orders (notice I did not say
sell?)
But termination will be going up (already seeing rising costs for 
Dedicated LD).

E-911 is not cheap (nor is it nationally available).

You can try to work with a friendly CLEC (or become one).
But Voice is way different from Data.
One bad 911 and you are being sued and possibly jailed.
Wouldn't you rather offer services that aren't competing against the 
growing monster?
You would be better off selling cellular for a residual than selling 
VOIP.


Vonage was going to IPO last year for $660M; this year they are 
looking for $220M


In 1Q05:
"Vonage Holdings Corp. Founded in 2001, the Edison (N.J.) provider of 
Internet phone service has raised $210 million and last year racked 
up about $100 million in revenue. It has spent enough on marketing in 
a bid to make itself a household name, and several VCs say it will go 
public this year or next. But critics complain that while its ads 
attract new customers, it doesn't retain as many as it should."


"Om says Vonage IPO. I don't think they can wait. Reports are their 
growth is slowing, that costs are rising and that founder Jeffrey 
Citron has a bundle of his own cash in the venture."


In  2006: /"The street writes: Vonage Holdings, moved to become the 
first major Internet telephony player to go public by filing 
Wednesday to raise up to $250 million via an initial offering of 
stock and named a Tyco International executive as CEO. Our revenues 
were $18.7million in 2003, $79.7million in 2004, and $174.0 million 
for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2005," the company's prospectus 
says."While our revenues have grown rapidly, we have experienced 
increasing net losses, primarily driven by our increase in marketing 
expenses. From the period of inception through Sept.30, 2005, our 
cumulative net loss was $310 million. Our net loss for the nine 
months ended Sept.30, 2005, was $189.6million. During the same 
nine-month period, our marketing expenses were $176.3million."/




Jason Hensley wrote:

 

What about for those of us in small markets where the large VoIP 
players don't have access numbers?  What is your opinion on them 
coming here? For instance, I'm in an area where the closest VoIP 
provider's number is 100 miles away with probably 25 or so NXX's 
that cannot call it locally. Not a feasible decision for a local 
business as any phone calls to them will be long distance for local 
residents.  Is there a case for or against partnering / working with 
a CLEC who has the ability to be WAY more flexible than the ILEC's, 
have them drop you DS1's / PRI's / whatever and work 

Re: [WISPA] VoIP/PBX Gateway appliance

[Matt Liotta]

Charles Wu wrote:


Out of curiosity...do you mean 2-5 cents per minute? Or 0.2 to 0.5 cents per
minute?

 


.2 cents; 2 cents a minute wouldn't be a very good deal.

-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] VoIP/PBX Gateway appliance

[Matt Liotta]

I can't share that information.

-Matt

Brian Whigham wrote:

care to share who you're using for termination or how much volume 
you're purchasing?


Matt Liotta wrote:


Charles Wu wrote:

Out of curiosity...do you mean 2-5 cents per minute? Or 0.2 to 0.5 
cents per

minute?

 


.2 cents; 2 cents a minute wouldn't be a very good deal.

-Matt



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] OT: VoIP termination

[Matt Liotta]

I assume those numbers don't require a commitment on minute volume. If 
so, those are seemingly strong offerings. However, I would assume this 
is over the internet termination, which we find unacceptable for several 
reasons not the least of which is QoS. Additionally, I have found many 
of these providers have no ability to deal with fax traffic. Then of 
course you get into the problem of LNP, CNAM, and E911.


-Matt

Brian Whigham wrote:

I don't know what volume Matt's dealing with.  But, I haven't checked 
the lowest prices in a few months; so my interest was piqued.


Here's what I found.  If anyone has any experience with these 
providers, let me know.  Both provide IAX2 and SIP.


sellvoip.net (since '97)
Product Monthly Cost Setup Cost Usage Cost
Local DID $1.00 $1.00 $0.011 per minute
Toll-Free DID $1.00 $2.00 $0.020 per minute US 48*

LNP available
DIDs were local to many rural GA areas (where I am)

plainvoip
USA termination - $0.009
Toll-free terminatoin - $0.005
6/6 billing

Currently, I use voipjet.com and voxee.com with much success.  
Domestic rates are $0.013 and $0.011 per minute, respectively.  I 
think they both bill 6/6.


Brian



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Any Asterisk experts on the list?

[Matt Liotta]

I'm sure we can solve your problem for you, but it may be easier --and 
cheaper-- just to ask the question on the list. Anyway, our Asterisk 
support is $125/hour.


-Matt

G.Villarini wrote:

I have some trouble with an asterisk implementation, we are looking 
for some expert helpat a reasonable rate,


 


Gino A. Villarini,

Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

www.aeronetpr.com 

787.273.4143

 



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] RP-N adapter

[Matt Liotta]

I am looking for an RP-N male to N male adapter. Anyone have any idea 
where to get one? I noticed Hyperlink sells pigtails, but not adapters 
for these connectors.


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

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

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

Re: [WISPA] RP-N adapter

[Matt Liotta]

I found an RP-N male to N femal adapter at Tessco that will work.

-Matt

Matt Liotta wrote:

I am looking for an RP-N male to N male adapter. Anyone have any idea 
where to get one? I noticed Hyperlink sells pigtails, but not adapters 
for these connectors.


-Matt



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Adzilla & Revenue Streams

[Matt Liotta]

The requirement is actually pretty simple. All of the traffic has to be 
aggregated to an appliance, so there has to be an appliance at each 
network's headend. Therefore, the company is going to want the most band 
for their buck by putting the appliance at large network headends as 
opposed to small.


One the flip side, businesses shouldn't be counted as single subs. 
Clearly, a business with 150 employees should be worth more than a 
single subscriber.


-Matt

Tom DeReggi wrote:

For the life of me, it amazes me how companies come up with 
requirements like  > 10,000.
Any one with half a sense, would realise that WISPs dont have 10,000 
subs yet, but all combined represent a unique segment of the market, 
"The Under Served", that no other ISP can touch.  Its not like you can 
turn the station like TV or Radio.


7000 wireless providers times 500 users each = 3,500,000 unique eye 
balls to market to with Broadband.

Adzilla is insane not having a 500 sub startout package.
Where you miss in vlume of users you substitute with frequency of adds.
Where you had had hardware appliance you subsitute software executable.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: "Brian Rohrbacher" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Adzilla & Revenue Streams


Oh, yippee.  1 WISP can do it.  10,000 subs what?  Guess we can quit 
talking about this.


Eric DaVersa wrote:


Currently its 10K subs since it is a rev share/subsidy model - dial-up,
DSL, wireless.  A high volume of business class subs can make this
number flexible.  There will be lower tier appliance platforms coming
down the pipeline.
Eric DaVersa
Vice-President, Business Development
NetLogix
OFFICE: 858.764.1998
CELL: 858.245.6702
FAX: 858.764.1982
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jory Privett
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 4:10 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Adzilla & Revenue Streams

What are the subs  that I have to have to get a system like this???

Jory Privett
WCCS

- Original Message - From: "Eric DaVersa" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 5:34 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Adzilla & Revenue Streams


The simple answer to that is "don't use that option."  The ad
optimization is transparent and its basically free money.  I usually
have to say it 3 times before ISPs start to understand the concept, so
in the interest of saving time...

It's free money, it's free money, and - you guessed it - it's still 
free

money.

Eric DaVersa
Vice-President, Business Development
NetLogix
OFFICE: 858.764.1998
CELL: 858.245.6702
FAX: 858.764.1982
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 2:47 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Adzilla & Revenue Streams


North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
personal correspondence to:  mark at neofast dot net
sales inquiries to:  purchasing at neofast dot net
Fast Internet, NO WIRES!
 



-
- Original Message - From: "Eric DaVersa" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 8:57 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Adzilla & Revenue Streams




For a Network Operator, you have some incredible new tools as part of
the package.  You have a GUI interface where you can insert messaging
DIRECT TO THE DESKTOP.  This means, "Dear Customer, your payment is 7
days past due, your account will be shut off if you do not pay within


x


hours."



I think if I tried that with my customers, I would be losing, not
gaining,
customers.   The notion of inserting something into thier data is... 
too

intrusive for me to consider.



North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
personal correspondence to:  mark at neofast dot net
sales inquiries to:  purchasing at neofast dot net
Fast Internet, NO WIRES!
 



-




--
Brian Rohrbacher
Reliable Internet, LLC
www.reliableinter.net
Cell 269-838-8338

"Caught up in the Air" 1 Thess. 4:17

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Adzilla & Revenue Streams

[Matt Liotta]

Tom DeReggi wrote:

You dont use Sun Boxes!  You use Linux based P4-3Ghz Rackmount PCs, 
they cost us about $700, and never had one give us a bit of trouble in 
5 years. Could probably do it in a set top box type unit for under $350.


While I haven't seen their software, the traditional reason to use a Sun 
box over something x86 is that an application is IO-bound as opposed to 
CPU bound. In this case, HTTP proxying sounds a lot like an IO-bound 
application hence the Sun box.


-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Adzilla & Revenue Streams

[Matt Liotta]

Tom DeReggi wrote:

Well thats the question. Does it have to be that way. I don't see the 
need to have all the traffic flow through it. I see it sitting in 
parallel, and just certain type of traffic gets redirected to the 
cache appliance server that adds the marketing data.


You aren't familiar with their business and neither am I. However, they 
are probably pretty familiar with their business and have designed their 
architecture with that in mind. Unless you are planning an entry into 
their business you probably want to take their word for it.


-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Airimba

[Matt Liotta]

We had a booth at the Atlanta Apartment Association show where they 
exhibited as well. They were very unprofessional in attempting to "spy" 
on us during the show. We would have told them the same information if 
they had only asked. Additionally, we have seen their work in Athens, GA 
and weren't impressed. I also understand they had opened a retail sales 
office there only later to close it down. I can say for sure that none 
of their deployments in Georgia are at any important apartments 
developments.


-Matt

chris cooper wrote:


Hi-

Anybody have any experience with Airimba in a multi-tennant deployment?
Equipment used, svc offerings etc?

Thanks,
Chris

 



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul options

[Matt Liotta]

You don't need licensed to high throughput backhaul. For example, 
Orthogon's Spectra provides 300Mbps aggregate at a price point generally 
less than 45Mbps licensed.


-Matt

Bobby Burrow wrote:


I'm looking at moving to a licensed solution to increase throughput across
one of out backhaul links that spans 5 hops. Distances between hops range
anywhere from 7 to 19 miles.

We are currently using the dual nstreme Mikrotik solution and it is working
very well, however the WRAP/RB532 solutions are only yielding ~25Mb per hop.

Can anyone recommend a licensed radio manufacturer that should net us
50Mb-100Mb per hop?

Thanks,

Bobby Burrow
East Texas Rural Net
www.etxrn.com


 



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul options

[Matt Liotta]

A Trango sales person mentioned to me that they were thinking about 
offering a licensed product. If the price is like the rest of their 
products that could change things quite a bit.


-Matt

G.Villarini wrote:


Charles,

Ill chime in here cause you can get a Spectra for $15 to $16k wheras a
Licensed link goes from $20k and up...

Gino A. Villarini, 
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.aeronetpr.com
787.273.4143

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Charles Wu
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 8:46 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul options

 

You don't need licensed to high throughput backhaul. For example, 
Orthogon's Spectra provides 300Mbps aggregate at a price point generally 
Less than 45Mbps licensed.
   



Hi Matt,

I am curious to see where / what you got those numbers for the Orthogon
Spectra?

-Charles

---
WiNOG Austin, TX
March 13-15, 2006
http://www.winog.com 




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 1:28 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul options



-Matt

Bobby Burrow wrote:

 

I'm looking at moving to a licensed solution to increase throughput 
across one of out backhaul links that spans 5 hops. Distances between 
hops range anywhere from 7 to 19 miles.


We are currently using the dual nstreme Mikrotik solution and it is 
working very well, however the WRAP/RB532 solutions are only yielding 
~25Mb per hop.


Can anyone recommend a licensed radio manufacturer that should net us 
50Mb-100Mb per hop?


Thanks,

Bobby Burrow
East Texas Rural Net
www.etxrn.com




   



 



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul options

[Matt Liotta]

Yes, but it will deliver easily the speed requested in the original post.

-Matt

Charles Wu wrote:


But a Spectra WILL NOT DELIVER anything close to 300 Mbps of REAL TCP
THROUGHPUT from 9-16 miles (not even half duplex)

And that's even assuming 30 Mhz of clean spectrum (> +25 dB SNR) in BOTH V &
H polarities

-Charles

---
WiNOG Austin, TX
March 13-15, 2006
http://www.winog.com 




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of G.Villarini
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 7:54 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul options


Charles,

Ill chime in here cause you can get a Spectra for $15 to $16k wheras a
Licensed link goes from $20k and up...

Gino A. Villarini, 
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.aeronetpr.com
787.273.4143

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Charles Wu
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 8:46 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul options

 


You don't need licensed to high throughput backhaul. For example,
Orthogon's Spectra provides 300Mbps aggregate at a price point generally 
Less than 45Mbps licensed.
   



Hi Matt,

I am curious to see where / what you got those numbers for the Orthogon
Spectra?

-Charles

---
WiNOG Austin, TX
March 13-15, 2006
http://www.winog.com 




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 1:28 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul options



-Matt

Bobby Burrow wrote:

 


I'm looking at moving to a licensed solution to increase throughput
across one of out backhaul links that spans 5 hops. Distances between 
hops range anywhere from 7 to 19 miles.


We are currently using the dual nstreme Mikrotik solution and it is
working very well, however the WRAP/RB532 solutions are only yielding 
~25Mb per hop.


Can anyone recommend a licensed radio manufacturer that should net us
50Mb-100Mb per hop?

Thanks,

Bobby Burrow
East Texas Rural Net
www.etxrn.com




   



 



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul options

[Matt Liotta]

Charles Wu wrote:

In an attenuated lab setup, running TCP (w/ Iperf), we see the 
following results with the Spectra @ the 300 Mbps data rate


 


1 Way TCP Max: 143 Mbps

2 Way BiDirectional TCP Max: 98.1 / 105 Mbps



What TCP settings did you use to achieve the above?

-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul options

[Matt Liotta]

Not sure what Linux kernel issues have to due with a FreeBSB box, but I 
am more interested in whether the following TCP settings are enabled.


RFC 2018 SACK
RFC 896 Nagle
RFC 3168 ECN
RFC 1323 Time stamping and window scaling

It is very difficult to achieve max throughput of a TCP link without at 
least SACK and window scaling enabled.


-Matt

Charles Wu wrote:


We are running FreeBSD boxes w/ Gigabit Ethernet NICs
I don't know all the details, since I'm not the technical guy running the
tests, but I believe we are using "standard" 1500-byte packets w/ standard
MTUs, etc

On a 100 Mb FastE link (benchmark) we get the following

1 Way TCP Max: 94.0 Mbps
2 Way BiDirectional TCP Max: 92.7 / 92.4 Mbps

On a GiGE link, due to Linux kernal processing issues, we max out at about
400 Mbps of "raw" TCP throughput

-Charles



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 11:49 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul options


Charles Wu wrote:

 


In an attenuated lab setup, running TCP (w/ Iperf), we see the
following results with the Spectra @ the 300 Mbps data rate



1 Way TCP Max: 143 Mbps

2 Way BiDirectional TCP Max: 98.1 / 105 Mbps


   


What TCP settings did you use to achieve the above?

-Matt

 



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul options

[Matt Liotta]

Charles Wu wrote:


Can you please explain how this is applicable in modern-day implementations
of TCP?  From my limited understanding, Nagle is a relic of the past (been
replaced by TCP Westwood, etc)

 

Nagle is very old circa 1984 I believe, but it hasn't really be 
replaced. Many folks would choose to use other algorithms for queuing in 
high throughput links, but generally nagle is on by default. Clearly, 
some form of queuing is desirable for maximum throughput of small 
packets, but more interactive applications are hurt by queuing e.g. 
VoIP. Therefore, it is useful to see what throughput is obtained with 
and without the setting on if you are considering using the radio pair 
for VoIP.



Yes, the bit is turned on, but can you please explain how this is applicable
for a transparent layer-2 bridging scenario?

 

It isn't applicable for a layer-2 bridging scenario. However, it can 
affect layer-3 devices on either side of the bridge when doing the 
throughput test, which may have an impact on the test. In my experience, 
it does not.


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

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

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

[WISPA] Muni wireless

[Matt Liotta]

I personally don't much care for Muni wireless as I would rather the 
government stay out of the ISP business. With that being said, Rome, GA 
announced that GTS had won the the contract to install a wireless system 
for the city. See http://muniwireless.com/municipal/bids/1102/ for 
details on the announcement.


What I thought the list might find interesting is that we (AirInfinite, 
now One Ring Networks) were included in GTS's bid and will now be 
providing backhaul for the wireless network. I believe this is an 
interesting approach for WISPs to take when dealing with munis that have 
an interest in wireless.


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

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Muni wireless

[Matt Liotta]

In this case, GTS is the company who is dealing with the City of Rome 
and won the deal. We simply convinced the integrator that we were the 
best option for providing backhaul.


-Matt

Dylan Oliver wrote:

Congratulations, Matt. Any comments/suggestions for dealing with 
municipal governments? How does the process differ from deals with 
businesses?


Best,
--
Dylan Oliver
Primaverity, LLC 



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Muni wireless

[Matt Liotta]

The real test for us will come when Atlanta releases its RFP, which is 
widely expected to be won by Earthlink.


-Matt

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Congradulations Matt.
What you demonstrated is exactly the message that WISPs need to send 
to their community and Munis. That there is benefit to partner with 
your local WISP that already has coverage and backbones, instead of 
duplicating, competing and interfering with them.  No Provider will 
want to interfere with their own backbone provider, which incourages a 
long term cooperative relationship with the existing WISP partner for 
mutual benefit.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 11:47 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Muni wireless


I personally don't much care for Muni wireless as I would rather the 
government stay out of the ISP business. With that being said, Rome, 
GA announced that GTS had won the the contract to install a wireless 
system for the city. See http://muniwireless.com/municipal/bids/1102/ 
for details on the announcement.


What I thought the list might find interesting is that we 
(AirInfinite, now One Ring Networks) were included in GTS's bid and 
will now be providing backhaul for the wireless network. I believe 
this is an interesting approach for WISPs to take when dealing with 
munis that have an interest in wireless.


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

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

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





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Switch Recomendation

[Matt Liotta]

We've found that you don't really need a QoS capable switch. What is 
more important is for the appropriate COS and TOS bits to be set by the 
VoIP device(s) in question and have a switch capable of "doing the right 
thing" with those packets. Every enterprise grade switch we have looked 
at seems to do the right thing when the bits are set. We've been happy 
with Dell switchs for example.


-Matt

George Rogato wrote:

I need a recommendation for a 12 port switch that handles a high 
amount of packet per second and has qos for voip.

Cost isn't an issue.

Anyone have a suggestion?

Thanks
George



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Switch Recomendation

[Matt Liotta]

Actually, no. Really, all a QoS enabled device can do is create an 
access list that looks for specific TCP/IP connections and mangles the 
TOS bit on the packets. So again, you don't need a QoS enabled device; 
you just need your VoIP devices to go ahead and set the TOS bit, so your 
layer 3 device can do the right thing. BTW, outside of setting the TOS 
bit, you can use to 802.1Q/802.1P assuming your VoIP device is 
VLAN-enabled and your network devices are VLAN aware.


The VLAN route is really the way to go, but most radios aren't up for 
it. We have found Canopy to do quite well with VLANs and even maintains 
a separate VC for high priority VLANs. Of course the CMM is not VLAN 
aware, which is a bummer.


Just to recap, we use Cisco 6500s and Cisco 3750MEs for our entire 
network, but we don't have to maintain a single access list on them for 
VoIP since our VoIP PBX/ATA/phones all know about TOS, and 802.1P.


-Matt

Rick Smith wrote:

I can't see how having a QOS switch could hurt...with VOIP, QOS in as 
many places

as possible can only help...

Paul Hendry wrote:

Is the switch likely to be the bottle neck in your network? Surely 
you want

QoS enabled routers where bandwidth isn't plentiful.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of George
Sent: 29 March 2006 03:50
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Switch Recomendation

Thanks matt and larry.
I have a 2512 procurve that we like and a Dell switch as well.

Who makes the Dell switches for Dell?

Guess what I really want is to make sure that those little voice 
packets get the priority :)


George

Matt Liotta wrote:
 

We've found that you don't really need a QoS capable switch. What is 
more important is for the appropriate COS and TOS bits to be set by 
the VoIP device(s) in question and have a switch capable of "doing 
the right thing" with those packets. Every enterprise grade switch 
we have looked at seems to do the right thing when the bits are set. 
We've been happy with Dell switchs for example.


-Matt

George Rogato wrote:

  

I need a recommendation for a 12 port switch that handles a high 
amount of packet per second and has qos for voip.

Cost isn't an issue.

Anyone have a suggestion?

Thanks
George




  



 



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Client Router selection

[Matt Liotta]

The best at any price doesn't seem to fit here. You only choose a 
commodity router to save money. I don't know anything about Imagestream 
specifically, but I certainly looked into Linux-based routers. In fact, 
we even ran Linux-based routers initially before going Cisco. We didn't 
blindly go with Cisco like many companies either. We looked long and 
hard at what every major vendor had to offer and ultimately went with 
Cisco. Certainly there aren't any Linux-based routers that out perform 
high-end Cisco routers, but that wasn't the most important part. The 
ability to support features such as MPLS, find labor resources familiar 
with Cisco, and ultimately being able to finance the gear make Cisco the 
clear choice.


-Matt

John Scrivner wrote:

Sorry to answer my own post but I should also mention that if I ever 
have a larger enterprise client (like a college, hospital, etc.) that 
needs a bullet-proof routing solution I will likely sell them 
Imagestream. My next big router for my core will be an Imagestream. 
Everyone I speak to about them say they are the best out there at any 
price.

Scriv


John Scrivner wrote:

We have good luck with Linksys. If the customer is a larger business 
client or someone who needs higher reliability and better features we 
often load up Mikrotik on a Routerboard or WRAP board.

Scriv


Bo Hamilton wrote:

Wondering what routers are all of you using at client installs?  
What are the most reliable and so on? thanks in advance!
 
Bo

NCOWireless.com






--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Un- licensed WIMAX?

[Matt Liotta]

The entire point of WiMAX may be interoperability, but from a fixed 
wireless standpoint interoperability is meaningless. When and if mobile 
WiMAX becomes interesting interoperability will be important. Until then 
there is no need for it in a fixed wireless network, so the 
certification badge isn't desirable. What is desirable is the 
capabilities of the radios. We certainly want to see 802.16-based radios 
in 5.8Ghz.


-Matt

Steve Stroh wrote:



Jeff:

If a system hasn't been through the interoperability testing, it ISN'T 
WiMAX - at all. Absent the certification of interoperability, at best 
what the vendors will be shipping and selling prior to achieving 
certification is a proprietary product with perhaps some "WiMAX 
features".


Vendors have been known to change their mind about guaranteeing 
"upgrade to final specifications" and likely a number of vendors will 
ship products and completely eschew the formalities of WiMAX 
interoperability certification. Nothing wrong with that unless they 
try to pull a fast one trying to associate such products with WiMAX, 
implying interoperability, where none is actually guaranteed.


There is not, and cannot be, 4.9 GHz "WiMAX" products because there is 
not, nor is there likely to be, a WiMAX Forum profile for 4.9 GHz 
given that band is US only, and the US is projected to be a minor 
market for WiMAX gear. So those vendors that claim to be, or soon will 
be, shipping "4.9 GHz WiMAX" gear are in fact shipping a PROPRIETARY 
system; absent WiMAX certification, there's no guarantee whatsoEVER of 
interoperability.


The entire POINT of WiMAX is interoperability!

The market is going to have to sort out the vendors who falsely claim 
"WiMAX" for their systems; apparently the WiMAX Forum has no intention 
of doing so.



Thanks,

Steve



On Apr 4, 2006, at 21:37, Jeffrey Thomas wrote:

That is correct, however those companies are expected to be shipping 
product ( and are taking pre orders )  that will comply with the 
testing whenever the gods at wimaxforum decide to get off their 
collective arses and certify 5.8. Airspan for example, already has 
wimax 4.9 product and is getting FCC certification. So in conclusion, 
yes on product, no on the interop profile or tests yet.


-

Jeff



---

Steve Stroh
425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

[Matt Liotta]

3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is equivalent to 
1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD radios can have dynamic time 
division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex link superior IMHO.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:


Tom,

Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco 
service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless?


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Chris,

I agree with your finding.
But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or what 
was the finding?)
For example, its not only important to determine what terms the 
customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning 
they have for those terms that they identify with.


For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that "High Speed 
Internet" was the term that the consumer best identified with.
However, most people identify "High Speed Internet" as much with 
DialUP service as they do with "Broadband".
And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL or 
Cable services.  Why do we want to create the image of offering 
commodity services, design for huge over subscription, low repair 
SLAs, and best effort?


Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as 
setting standards for quality?


We don't want to be identified as that.  We want to be something better.

Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi services to 
your clients, and you are striving to be a competitor to Cable and 
DSL quality, sure Brand the product as DSL, and its a good thing.  
And please do so, so your wireless is not identified with what we 
offer, branding high quality fiber extension and T1 replacement 
services.


In your focus group did you get any results on their perception of 
quality that they associated with Cable and DSL or the term "High 
Speed Internet"?


Would you suggest branding your T1 or Fiber offerings as "High Speed 
Internet", since customers best identify with that term?


Maybe we should be branding our service as "Wi-Fiber". or Maybe 
"Ethernet Internet Access"  (of course like end users will know what 
Ethernet means.)


Its a tough call because if we called our service "Fiber" or "T1" 
we'd most likely be liars based on their true definitions.

Nothing exists realting to quality for us to piggy back on.

All though "Broadband" may not be as well recognized, its doesn;t 
associate us with Telcos or Cable companies necessarilly.
Broadband is truthfully defined as a general term to cover any media 
type of delivery of Internet Access.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: "chris cooper" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:34 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband


We conducted a few focus groups here.  Most of the attendees were in 
the
18-24 yr. age bracket.  It was amazing how many didn't identify with 
the

word broadband.  The words they responded to best were 'high speed
internet"  Wireless was way down the list.  Too much confusion with
cellular.

That said, I think wireless will hold its own as a marketing term
eventually.  Wireless is the sexy new darling of the world. It will be
worth trading on the word eventually.  The other part of this is 
that we

are building brands as wireless providers, so it makes sense to keep
that in the mix until the world catches up.  In 95-96 I was out trying
to sell people on the words internet, email and website.  Those words
didn't register then but they are now a permanent part of the American
lexicon and in the American brain.  The word wireless and what it
represents will eventually do the same.

chris

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:13 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

Agreed excellent point (wireless scares and confuses people), 
except


Why associate your service with DSL, a low grade $39 a month 
service, as


advertized by Verizon?
Why not associate it with T1 or just Broadband, higher quality 
services?


If you associate it with DSL, then your are also associating it with 
the


same quality and price. They think you are ripping them off charging
$150 a
month when they can get it for $39 a month down the street.  When in
accuality you are saving them 70% off their T1 line.

Let me share a case that happened just yesterday.  I got a call for 
DSL,


they currently had voip and data on a T1, and they were looking for a
DSL
line to transfer the Internet Data to, to free up bandwidth on their T1
for
their VOIP.  It was a 15 minute close over the phone, since we had the
MTU
building lit, and represented we could have their new circuit installed
the
following day. I represented we were selling broadband, a T1
replacement. I
made the mistake of leavingthe labeling of the contract heading as
"Wireless
Broadband A

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

[Matt Liotta]

It is true. Basic logic says that 3Mbps divided in half means you can 
get 1.5Mbps. Further, find any device that can have strict time division 
partitioning set and test it yourself.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:


Matt,

This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps upload, 
it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic, music sharing, 
worms, etc.). With a wireless connection, even at 3.0Mbps, a 1.5Mbps 
upload will bring it almost to a stop.


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is equivalent to 
1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD radios can have dynamic 
time division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex link superior IMHO.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:


Tom,

Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco 
service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless?


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Chris,

I agree with your finding.
But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or 
what was the finding?)
For example, its not only important to determine what terms the 
customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning 
they have for those terms that they identify with.


For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that "High Speed 
Internet" was the term that the consumer best identified with.
However, most people identify "High Speed Internet" as much with 
DialUP service as they do with "Broadband".
And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL or 
Cable services.  Why do we want to create the image of offering 
commodity services, design for huge over subscription, low repair 
SLAs, and best effort?


Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as 
setting standards for quality?


We don't want to be identified as that.  We want to be something 
better.


Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi services 
to your clients, and you are striving to be a competitor to Cable 
and DSL quality, sure Brand the product as DSL, and its a good 
thing.  And please do so, so your wireless is not identified with 
what we offer, branding high quality fiber extension and T1 
replacement services.


In your focus group did you get any results on their perception of 
quality that they associated with Cable and DSL or the term "High 
Speed Internet"?


Would you suggest branding your T1 or Fiber offerings as "High 
Speed Internet", since customers best identify with that term?


Maybe we should be branding our service as "Wi-Fiber". or Maybe 
"Ethernet Internet Access"  (of course like end users will know 
what Ethernet means.)


Its a tough call because if we called our service "Fiber" or "T1" 
we'd most likely be liars based on their true definitions.

Nothing exists realting to quality for us to piggy back on.

All though "Broadband" may not be as well recognized, its doesn;t 
associate us with Telcos or Cable companies necessarilly.
Broadband is truthfully defined as a general term to cover any 
media type of delivery of Internet Access.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: "chris cooper" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:34 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband


We conducted a few focus groups here.  Most of the attendees were 
in the
18-24 yr. age bracket.  It was amazing how many didn't identify 
with the

word broadband.  The words they responded to best were 'high speed
internet"  Wireless was way down the list.  Too much confusion with
cellular.

That said, I think wireless will hold its own as a marketing term
eventually.  Wireless is the sexy new darling of the world. It 
will be
worth trading on the word eventually.  The other part of this is 
that we

are building brands as wireless providers, so it makes sense to keep
that in the mix until the world catches up.  In 95-96 I was out 
trying

to sell people on the words internet, email and website.  Those words
didn't register then but they are now a permanent part of the 
American

lexicon and in the American brain.  The word wireless and what it
represents will eventually do the same.

chris

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

Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:13 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

Agreed excellent point (wireless scares and confuses people), 
except


Why associate your service with DSL, a low grade $39 a month 
service, as


advertized by Verizon?
Why not associate it with T1 or just Broadband, higher quality 
services?


If you associate it with DSL, then your are also associating it 
with the


same quality and price. They think you are 

Re: [WISPA] Un- licensed WIMAX?

[Matt Liotta]

I didn't mean to imply that I am waiting on the technology. We use 
Orthogon today, which provides us all the capabilities of WiMAX and then 
some. However, the price point simply doesn't compete with Canopy for 
last mile use, which is why we continue to use it. We are waiting on the 
capabilities at a price point similar to Canopy. None of the WiMAX 
vendors offer that today and I don't see how selling millions of 3.5Ghz 
radios is going to help the situation in the US.


-Matt

Steve Stroh wrote:



Matt:

The "capabilities" of WiMAX ALREADY exist in the proprietary products 
of Alvarion, Redline, Aperto Networks, etc. WiMAX is a standardization 
of the lowest-common-denominator of those capabilities, with certified 
interoperability.


If you've waited this long for "WiMAX" capabilities, and don't care 
about interoperability... you've waited several years longer than you 
needed to.



Thanks,

Steve


On Apr 5, 2006, at 09:02, Matt Liotta wrote:

The entire point of WiMAX may be interoperability, but from a fixed 
wireless standpoint interoperability is meaningless. When and if 
mobile WiMAX becomes interesting interoperability will be important. 
Until then there is no need for it in a fixed wireless network, so 
the certification badge isn't desirable. What is desirable is the 
capabilities of the radios. We certainly want to see 802.16-based 
radios in 5.8Ghz.


-Matt



---

Steve Stroh
425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

[Matt Liotta]

ioritization when using 
bi-directional sensitive applications such as VOIP.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband



Hi,

If someone wants to setup whatever wireless network they would like 
to test and then let me know, I'll gladly send you a CD you can pop 
in a laptop and connect at the CPE side. It will dish out 4,000pps 
and 1.5Mbps of upload traffic. Then you can go ahead and try and 
download something at the same time across that same link using the 
same CPE connection.


If it were a telco-T1, the download would not even notice the 
upload. Wireless, being a half-duplex medium, does not compare to a 
full-duplex line. Licensed and true microwave systems are a 
different story.


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Travis,

We do not see that on our network.
One provider's usage rarely has an effect on the others, that can 
be significantly noticed.
When bandwidth management is done at the first hop at every cell 
site, this does not happen.

I'm referring to using Trango 5830s.

You are however bringing up the difference between time syncronized 
circuit based apposed to Ethernet products.
With Ethernet, there is always a scale up and scale down of speed, 
based on the TCP protocol when limits are reached, but this has 
nothing to do with half or full duplex. The same degregation using 
Ethernet applies to traffic going in the same direction.
For Ethernet to be a viable repalcement for T1, it must be of 
greater capacity.


The second thing, distinguishing the difference between T1 and DSL 
classe, and which Wireless compares to, is more than just Speed and 
Duplex.


SLAs,  Repair Time, Network support, Peak Speed, etc.

the idea is that unused bandwdith can never be gone back to regain 
use of. So offering 3 mbps speed allows network usage to be 
delivered sooner, so bandwidth is free for upcomming traffic, 
therefore making more traffic available for that upcomming need. 
Higher capacity allows more efficient use of the bandwdith.  So we 
find that our customers tend to recognize a perception of much 
better speed on our wireless links than our T1 links, because they 
have fewer congestion times.


The secret is for the bandwdith management to be provided equally 
on a PRIORITY basis.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband



Matt,

This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps 
upload, it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic, 
music sharing, worms, etc.). With a wireless connection, even at 
3.0Mbps, a 1.5Mbps upload will bring it almost to a stop.


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is equivalent 
to 1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD radios can have 
dynamic time division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex link superior IMHO.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:


Tom,

Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 
telco service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless?


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Chris,

I agree with your finding.
But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or 
what was the finding?)
For example, its not only important to determine what terms the 
customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what 
meaning they have for those terms that they identify with.


For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that "High Speed 
Internet" was the term that the consumer best identified with.
However, most people identify "High Speed Internet" as much 
with DialUP service as they do with "Broadband".
And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL 
or Cable services.  Why do we want to create the image of 
offering commodity services, design for huge over subscription, 
low repair SLAs, and best effort?


Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as 
setting standards for quality?


We don't want to be identified as that.  We want to be 
something better.


Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi 
services to your clients, and you are striving to be a 
competitor to Cable and DSL quality, sure Brand the product as 
DSL, and its a good thing. And please do so, so your wireless 
is not identified with what we offer, branding high quality 
fiber extension and T1 replacement services.


In your focus group did you get any results on their perception 
of quality that they associated with Cable and DSL or the term 
"High Speed Internet"?


Would yo

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

[Matt Liotta]

We haven't been in business for 3 years, but yes we have wireless links 
that have 100% uptime. How many years did this entire country depend on 
wireless links for long distance prior to fiber optics? The M in MCI 
isn't microwave for no reason.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:


Hi,

I have point to point T1 lines from Qwest that have been up 100% for 
the last 3 years. That's 100.0% uptime. Do you have any wireless links 
that have that type of reliability?


I am probably one of the largest WISP operators on this and any 
wireless list. I built our entire wireless backbone from the ground up 
starting in 1997. I spent 3 hours on a tower this morning installing 
two new AP's. I understand where wireless fits and where it doesn't.


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

I'll take a wireless link over a T1 any day if for no other reason 
then the wireless link will be more reliable. You're never going to 
suffer the loss of a link due to a backhoe or a drunk driver hitting 
a pole, which are the two most likely reasons for a T1 failure.


Personally, I believe that fixed wireless is truly better and I would 
argue someone has no business working for a fixed wireless company if 
they don't believe it too.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:


Tom,

The original postition and question was "are you comparing your 
wireless service to telco T1". After your posts, it's obvious that 
you are... and I would argue that a land-based line will ALWAYS be 
better than wireless, with all other factors being the same. Now, if 
you are able to save the customer $xx per month by using wireless, 
then there is an advantage. If you can provide other services, then 
there is an advantage. However, comparing a half-duplex system to a 
full-duplex system and saying they are the same is... not correct.


If you had the choice between running a full-duplex wireless system 
and half-duplex, which would you do? :)


If you could purchase a land-based connection to go from point A to 
point B for $500 per month, or rent roof-top space at point A and 
point B for $500 per month, which would you choose? ;)


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Travis,

I'd love to perform your test.
Send me the CD.
Understanding that I will provision the customer at 3 mbps on our 
first hop router, using Trango 10mbps PtMP radio link, and that 
your CD test will generate 1500mbps of data transfer.


There are three seperate issues here. 1) One user's connection able 
to effect another user's connection, and 2) On one particular link, 
their upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under normal 
opperation within acceptable use policy, and 3) On one particular 
link, their upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under 
a Denial of Service situation.


With any type of broadband, if the capacity of a link is saturated, 
it results in packet loss and performance loss for the individual's 
connection. Its up to the end user to protect against violation of 
acceptable use policy like viruses that deliver abnormal PPS, or 
any queueing needed to allow fair priority of data type on the LAN 
side of the link. These problems can also all be solved with a 
feature rich client side router before plugging to our Broadband, 
regardless of the Duplex of our link.  In other words, The same 
performance problems will result on a full Duplex link, if one 
direction gets saturated, and that same direction traffic will 
result in packet loss, and all communication generally requires 
some communication in each of the direction for traffic to flow in 
one direction.  So where the problem may be worse with Half Duplex, 
the problem still exists in some capacity with Full Duplex. I'd 
argue that its possible to generate enough pps on a Full Duplex 
Link in one direction, that will overload the processing power of 
the radio CPU, and the other direction still getting horrible 
performance even with no traffic passing in that other direction 
even though Full Duplex, because no CPU time is available for it. 
Unless each direction has its own CPU, which is not likely.  This 
is an issue of whether the radio used can handle the number of PPS 
sent to it in high DOS situations.


I'd also argue under this situation 4000 pps 1500 mbps, that the 
customer's use of the circuit in any capacity when a DOS of that 
type was happening, would be not possible, and justify immediate 
tech action to resolve, regardless of whether one direction of 
traffic was usable.  I;ve never met a company where having one 
direction traffic only was acceptable or tolerable.


You did however hit on an important clarification. A half duplex 
link can not distinguish on its own wether upload or download 
traffic at a given moment is priority or more important to the 
subscriber. When there is a large demand for legitimate broadband, 
why would the data in one direction be any more priority than t

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

[Matt Liotta]

Licensed microwave doesn't cost $150,000 and we don't use any gear that 
is any where near as cheap as $150. Maybe the reason your wireless links 
aren't reliable is because you aren't spending enough on them. Every 
wireless link that has failed in our history has been the result of 
human error on our part.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:


Matt,

Now you are comparing $150,000 point to point licensed microwave links 
with $150 CPE point to multi-point links?


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

We haven't been in business for 3 years, but yes we have wireless 
links that have 100% uptime. How many years did this entire country 
depend on wireless links for long distance prior to fiber optics? The 
M in MCI isn't microwave for no reason.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:


Hi,

I have point to point T1 lines from Qwest that have been up 100% for 
the last 3 years. That's 100.0% uptime. Do you have any wireless 
links that have that type of reliability?


I am probably one of the largest WISP operators on this and any 
wireless list. I built our entire wireless backbone from the ground 
up starting in 1997. I spent 3 hours on a tower this morning 
installing two new AP's. I understand where wireless fits and where 
it doesn't.


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

I'll take a wireless link over a T1 any day if for no other reason 
then the wireless link will be more reliable. You're never going to 
suffer the loss of a link due to a backhoe or a drunk driver 
hitting a pole, which are the two most likely reasons for a T1 
failure.


Personally, I believe that fixed wireless is truly better and I 
would argue someone has no business working for a fixed wireless 
company if they don't believe it too.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:


Tom,

The original postition and question was "are you comparing your 
wireless service to telco T1". After your posts, it's obvious that 
you are... and I would argue that a land-based line will ALWAYS be 
better than wireless, with all other factors being the same. Now, 
if you are able to save the customer $xx per month by using 
wireless, then there is an advantage. If you can provide other 
services, then there is an advantage. However, comparing a 
half-duplex system to a full-duplex system and saying they are the 
same is... not correct.


If you had the choice between running a full-duplex wireless 
system and half-duplex, which would you do? :)


If you could purchase a land-based connection to go from point A 
to point B for $500 per month, or rent roof-top space at point A 
and point B for $500 per month, which would you choose? ;)


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Travis,

I'd love to perform your test.
Send me the CD.
Understanding that I will provision the customer at 3 mbps on our 
first hop router, using Trango 10mbps PtMP radio link, and that 
your CD test will generate 1500mbps of data transfer.


There are three seperate issues here. 1) One user's connection 
able to effect another user's connection, and 2) On one 
particular link, their upload traffic effecting their download 
traffic, under normal opperation within acceptable use policy, 
and 3) On one particular link, their upload traffic effecting 
their download traffic, under a Denial of Service situation.


With any type of broadband, if the capacity of a link is 
saturated, it results in packet loss and performance loss for the 
individual's connection. Its up to the end user to protect 
against violation of acceptable use policy like viruses that 
deliver abnormal PPS, or any queueing needed to allow fair 
priority of data type on the LAN side of the link. These problems 
can also all be solved with a feature rich client side router 
before plugging to our Broadband, regardless of the Duplex of our 
link.  In other words, The same performance problems will result 
on a full Duplex link, if one direction gets saturated, and that 
same direction traffic will result in packet loss, and all 
communication generally requires some communication in each of 
the direction for traffic to flow in one direction.  So where the 
problem may be worse with Half Duplex, the problem still exists 
in some capacity with Full Duplex. I'd argue that its possible to 
generate enough pps on a Full Duplex Link in one direction, that 
will overload the processing power of the radio CPU, and the 
other direction still getting horrible performance even with no 
traffic passing in that other direction even though Full Duplex, 
because no CPU time is available for it. Unless each direction 
has its own CPU, which is not likely.  This is an issue of 
whether the radio used can handle the number of PPS sent to it in 
high DOS situations.


I'd also argue under this situation 4000 pps 1500 mbps, that the 
customer's use of the circuit in any capacity when a DOS of that 
type was happening, would be not possible, an

engineering links (was Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband)

[Matt Liotta]

I know we keep working on our processes to improve the installation of 
our links. We still have a "burn-in" period after installations because 
our processes aren't yet 100%. I think it would be great if we could 
together work up a documented procedure to ensure better wireline 
reliability of wireless links.


-Matt

John Scrivner wrote:

Well engineered links with proper installation, lightning protection, 
battery backup and good gear will be just as reliable (if not more) as 
any land line system in my opinion. The rub is that many wireless 
links are poorly engineered, bad gear and not installed well. Garbage 
in...garbage out. I am just as guilty as anyone else. I am fixing that 
though. I have wireless links that are getting to be as reliable as 
wired ones. I will be "better than wired" reliably here in a year. The 
cost factor puts wireless well ahead of any risk/reward or value 
comparisons to other broadband platforms. Wireless will be the clear 
winner in the end if we all learn to do it right and buy good gear.

Scriv



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

[Matt Liotta]

Travis Johnson wrote:

20 years ago before the "fiber" and MCI was using links, they cost 
more than $150k. Even our local cell phone provider has point to point 
links that are over $100k today.


That's nice, but they don't have to cost that much. I know one of the 
local metro counties here is using 7Ghz licensed for trunking their 911 
operations and each link cost under $50k. I am not privy to the uptime 
of these links, but I am guessing that they must be pretty reliable if 
they are used for 911 by a government entity.


I've been doing this for almost 10 years I have THOUSANDS of 
wireless customers. How many customers do you have? The total number 
of failures is relative to the number of CPE.


I don't really see how we can compare our businesses as we don't really 
do much multipoint. A customer that just buys a T1 replacement for a 
single location is the exception in our business. Most of our customers 
are buying a lot more bandwidth and/or have many locations. For example, 
one of our CLEC customers just placed an order for 14 new 3Mbps links. 
You think a CLEC is going to use us for last mile if we can't provide 
them with a 99.99%/50ms SLA?


And if you are using CPE that is more than $150, maybe you should be 
looking at Trango. :)


We evaluated Trango and even used them in a the field for a while. We 
don't use Trango anymore.


-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

[Matt Liotta]

Using for what? Motorola and Orthogon for our radio links.

-Matt

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Matt,

What hardware are you using?

Dan Metcalf
Wireless Broadband Systems
www.wbisp.com
781-566-2053 ext 6201
1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
support: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


 


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 2:40 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

Travis Johnson wrote:

   


20 years ago before the "fiber" and MCI was using links, they cost
more than $150k. Even our local cell phone provider has point to point
links that are over $100k today.

 


That's nice, but they don't have to cost that much. I know one of the
local metro counties here is using 7Ghz licensed for trunking their 911
operations and each link cost under $50k. I am not privy to the uptime
of these links, but I am guessing that they must be pretty reliable if
they are used for 911 by a government entity.

   


I've been doing this for almost 10 years I have THOUSANDS of
wireless customers. How many customers do you have? The total number
of failures is relative to the number of CPE.

 


I don't really see how we can compare our businesses as we don't really
do much multipoint. A customer that just buys a T1 replacement for a
single location is the exception in our business. Most of our customers
are buying a lot more bandwidth and/or have many locations. For example,
one of our CLEC customers just placed an order for 14 new 3Mbps links.
You think a CLEC is going to use us for last mile if we can't provide
them with a 99.99%/50ms SLA?

   


And if you are using CPE that is more than $150, maybe you should be
looking at Trango. :)

 


We evaluated Trango and even used them in a the field for a while. We
don't use Trango anymore.

-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/303 - Release Date: 04/06/2006

   



 



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] Broadband wireless world

[Matt Liotta]

Anyone going to Broadband Wireless World?

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

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

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

Re: [WISPA] motorola buys orthogon

[Matt Liotta]

Begun the OFDM wars have.

-Matt

P.S. Motorola already tried to buy Tropos, but found they were too 
expense, which is why they bought Mesh Networks instead.


Dylan Oliver wrote:


http://www.telecomweb.com/news/1145387747.htm

Motorola has been rebranding OS backhauls - now they've bought the 
company! I wonder if Tropos is next .. and what their plans for the 
Orthogon Systems group are.


Best,
--
Dylan Oliver
Primaverity, LLC 



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

3650 update (was Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update)

[Matt Liotta]

Patrick Leary wrote:


Steve, I simply refuse to accept that the current rules are sacrosanct,
there are not, and the proposed rules for 3650MHz bolter my case. In
3650MHz, the FCC made strong and specific reference that they well might not
accept products that they believed were designed not to, play nice, so to
speak. The FCC clearly understands many of the flaws of Part 15 and they
looked upon 3650MHz as a clean slate.

 


Any chance for a 3650 update along the same lines as your WiMAX email?

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

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

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

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

[Matt Liotta]

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

-Matt

Jack Unger wrote:

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

  jack

George wrote:


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

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

George





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

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

[Matt Liotta]

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


-Matt

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


roflol

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


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

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


sigh

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



- Original Message - From: "George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:07 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes



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

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

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

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

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





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

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

[Matt Liotta]

George wrote:

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


Here in Atlanta you can't use 2.4 unless it is indoors. In fact, you 
have to get out 90+ miles before the noise floor drops off enough to 
even think about it. We tested Tropos units here, which are high powered 
and have good receive sensitivity, but we still need each node to be 
spaced anywhere from 0.125 to 0.25 miles apart to provide decent indoor 
penetration. With a higher powered CPE we can separate the nodes further 
apart, but in the end it still requires too many nodes. I say too many 
because of the bandwidth loss experienced by using single radio mesh 
nodes. At least here, you can't use multi-radio nodes because the only 
Wi-Fi channel that doesn't have an impossible noise floor is channel 1 
and there are too many trees to use something other than 2.4 for 
intra-mesh distribution.


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

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

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

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

[Matt Liotta]

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


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

-Matt

chris cooper wrote:


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

c

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

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

-

Jeff



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

 


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


are
 


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


$74,000
 


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

John


   


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

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

c

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


On
 


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

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

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

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

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

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



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


4/14/2006
 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




 



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

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

[Matt Liotta]

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


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

-Matt

Jack Unger wrote:


Dawn,

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

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


jack


Dawn DiPietro wrote:


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

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


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


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


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


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


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





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


roflol

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


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

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


sigh

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

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



- Original Message - From: "George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:07 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes



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

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

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

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

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





---
---





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

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

[Matt Liotta]

Jack Unger wrote:

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


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


-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

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

[Matt Liotta]

You make the assumption that the Tropos nodes have little to no 
attenuation between them, which is a poor assumption. A useful exercise 
is to drive around and make a list of Metrocom nodes. You'll find that a 
very small percentage have LOS or even near-LOS to each other. Metrocom 
certainly was able to provide ubiquitous coverage long before the muni 
Wi-Fi was all the rage. Where was your physics then?


-Matt

Brian Webster wrote:


HP likes to design these Tropos networks by never having more than 2 hops
before it gets put on some sort of backhaul. This in theory works well but
in reality, you still run out of 2.4 GHz channels to place the access nodes
on. Remember each radio/mesh unit is at the same height as every other one
thus firing their signal directly in to the antenna of all neighboring
nodes. The users may not see the noise but node to node traffic certainly
hears it. When the mesh radio is deaf because of noise, the network just
plain fails to work. End of story. Mesh will simply not work on a loaded
residential user based system without a lot more spectrum. People are trying
to fight the laws of physics. Ask any ham radio guy about this. When they
originally built packet radio networks back in the early 90's, they found
you needed separate channels to make it work (and that was only 1200 baud).
San Francisco, Philly and any other muni network are going to fail based on
this problem. The idea and premise of a muni network is solid based on the
points Matt Larsen brought up but as Jack and others have stated, they have
been sold on all of the positive benefits but never get told the
limitations. The typical IT mentality is that they can throw more money at
the problem to increase capacity. This is simply not true based on the
limited number of useable channels. Sad thing is there will be a lot of
taxpayer money wasted to prove this point.



Thank You,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com 


-Original Message-
From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 1:22 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes


Dawn,

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

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

jack


Dawn DiPietro wrote:

 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

   


roflol

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

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

It's really t

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

[Matt Liotta]

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


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


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


-Matt

Jack Unger wrote:

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

 jack

Matt Liotta wrote:


Jack Unger wrote:

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


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


-Matt





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

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

[Matt Liotta]

Jack Unger wrote:

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


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



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


Physics applies on all spectrum.

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


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

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


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


d. Metricom then went out of business.


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


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


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


-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

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

[Matt Liotta]

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


-Matt

Jeffrey Thomas wrote:


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

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

-

Jeff



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

 


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

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

-Matt

chris cooper wrote:

   


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

c

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

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

-

Jeff



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



 


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

   


are


 


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

   


$74,000


 


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

John


  

   


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

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

c

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


 


On


 


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

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

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

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

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

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



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


 


4/14/2006


 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

   




 




 



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] What's next for the forward looking WISP?

[Matt Liotta]

Which point exactly did he nail? I could disagree will several points in 
regard to leased lines. Further, I don't understand why any operator 
would be excited to see leased lines prices fall. The higher the ARPU 
the better as far as I am concerned.


-Matt

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Marlon,

Nice article!
You hit it right on the nose with Leased lines.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


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

To: 
Cc: 
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 2:38 PM
Subject: [WISPA] What's next for the forward looking WISP?



http://www.isp-planet.com/fixed_wireless/business/2006/lines.html

Let the argument begin!  grin

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



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

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

[Matt Liotta]

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


-Matt

George Rogato wrote:


It is a stretch peter.

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


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


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


So what should we do?

George




Peter R. wrote:


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

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

- Peter
RAD-INFO, Inc.


George Rogato wrote:

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


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


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


Wouldn't you start wondering if those p4 routers and DS3's you got 
there be enough to handle that type of traffic?

Would you have to upgrade your infrastructure to accomadate this?

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


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


George








--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

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

[Matt Liotta]

Tom DeReggi wrote:

When someone sells 1 mbps of speed, who said that meant they are 
selling the customer continuous 1 mbps for what ever use they want? 
And just because we sell them a 1 mbps last mile, who says that we are 
selling them that capacity accross our backbone network?


You may oversubscribe your customers; not every ISP does. However, that 
is irrelevant. If the customer is buying an oversubscribed link then the 
customer must accept that certain types of content may not work very 
well. That is the customer's choice.


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



What makes you come to that conclusion?

When I sell 1 mbps to a resident, I in no way represent I am selling 
the subscriber 1 mbps of capacity. I'm selling him that speed. There 
is a nig difference.  If they want that guaranteed capacity, they can 
buy it from me per bit, or pay for a CIR plan that guarantees that 
capacity.


And if the customer buys a CIR plan then they can use their connection 
for whatever content they want right? So, where is your argument against 
my earlier email?


VOIP providers most likely won't share my view, as they want a free 
ride. However, I beleive VOIP providers would not be harmfully 
effected by this, as all it would mean is that they must make 
partnerships with ISPs. There are 7000 ISPs out there ready to accept 
partnerships.  Whats wrong with that.  UNfortuneately, the idea that a 
VOIP content provider should ahve free reign to sell to anyone, such 
as through best Buy and Circuit cities, regardless of which ISP used, 
is a flawed model for competition. The reason is that the most popular 
and largest VOIP providers will be the one that gets the deal with 
Circuit Cities and Best Buys, and the industry will get lopsided, 
almost like a market driven self created monopoly.  Forcing VOIP 
providers to make deals with ISPs, will create the opportunity for 
more different VOIP providers to be successfull and have a peice of 
the pie. It will also guaranteee that consumers can't as easilly be 
blindsided by misrepresenting marketing material. It will guarantee 
that VOIP has a better chance to survuve will good QOS because 
attention will be given by the broadband provider to make sure it is 
there.


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


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

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Wimax Hardware for sale?

[Matt Liotta]

Patrick Leary wrote:


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

 

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


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

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Wimax Hardware for sale?

[Matt Liotta]

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


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


-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:


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

- Patrick, Alvarion

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

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

Patrick Leary wrote:

 


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



   

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


-Matt
 



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

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

[Matt Liotta]

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

-Matt

Charles Wu wrote:


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

-Charles

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




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


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


-Matt

George Rogato wrote:

 


It is a stretch peter.

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


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

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


So what should we do?

George




Peter R. wrote:

   


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

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


- Peter
RAD-INFO, Inc.


George Rogato wrote:

 


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

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


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

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

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


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


George
   



 



 



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

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

[Matt Liotta]

Charles Wu wrote:


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

 

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



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

 

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


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

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

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

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

[Matt Liotta]

Tom DeReggi wrote:

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

[Matt Liotta]

The 1.5/256 DSL service is still offered under a tariff, which is why I 
believe it is the only service you can order without a commercial 
agreement with BellSouth.


-Matt

Peter R. wrote:


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

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

- Peter


Matt Liotta wrote:


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

-Matt

Charles Wu wrote:


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

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

-Charles





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

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

[Matt Liotta]

Charles Wu wrote:


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

 

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



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

 

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



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

 

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


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

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

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

Re: [WISPA] 48port switch w/ 802.11q

[Matt Liotta]

Dell PowerConnect

-Matt

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Is there a beast for under $500? I know trendnet makes some *stuff* but it is
port based vlaning



Dan Metcalf
Wireless Broadband Systems
www.wbisp.com
781-566-2053 ext 6201
1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
support: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


 



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] gas prices

[Matt Liotta]

You're kidding right? You have a good accountant and a good lawyer yet 
neither has strongly recommended you have some sort of liability 
protection? Insurance isn't enough; spend the couple of hundred dollars 
it takes to incorporate.


-Matt

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


We've got a good accountant and a good lawyer.

Being a corp has it's down sides too.

We're probably not far from it though.  When the time is right we'll 
jump on the band wagon.  When you sell, if you are a corp, you take a 
huge hit.


As for hiding behind a corporate veil, what's the exposure?  If you 
really screw up they go after you personally anyhow.  And we're 
insured quite well.


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



- Original Message - From: "Peter R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 11:23 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] gas prices



You run your business as a sole proprietor?
That means you have no asset protection - and you can only take 
advantage of about 25% of the tax code.

S Corp or LLC allows you both asset protection and tax breaks.
Marlon, spend the $1000 to have a corporate attorney get you 
incorporated and get your assets allocated correctly.

One lawsuit and you lose everything - personal and business.

Regards,

Peter

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

We're a sole proprietor so all of the gas runs under the same bill.  
I filled the boat up once.  Melissa drives a Suburban to work (4 
miles or so) and we usually take that on out of town trips (much 
safer than the car) and I did fill up two Jerry cans for the dirt 
bikes.



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] 4ft 5.8Ghz dual polarized grid

[Matt Liotta]

Anyone know where to find such a thing?

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

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

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

Re: [WISPA] 4ft 5.8Ghz dual polarized grid

[Matt Liotta]

32-34dbi

-Matt

Blair Davis wrote:


What kind of gain is that gonna have?

Say maybe 40db?

Matt Liotta wrote:


Anyone know where to find such a thing?

-Matt







--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] 4ft 5.8Ghz dual polarized grid

[Matt Liotta]

Those are dishes; not grids.

-Matt

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


I just ordered 7 4' Dual Pol Andrews dishes.  They are rated at 34.9 db.

Rick Harnish
President
Supernova Technologies, Inc.
260-827-2482 Office
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Founding Member of WISPA 



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 6:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 4ft 5.8Ghz dual polarized grid

32-34dbi

-Matt

Blair Davis wrote:

 


What kind of gain is that gonna have?

Say maybe 40db?

Matt Liotta wrote:

   


Anyone know where to find such a thing?

-Matt
 




   



 



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] 4ft 5.8Ghz dual polarized grid

[Matt Liotta]

I am looking for grids!!!

-Matt

Bob Moldashel wrote:


Tessco, Hutton, Winncom, Alliance, Talley,..

Radiowave, Gabriel, RFS and Andrews all make 4' dual polarity dishes.



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] 4ft 5.8Ghz dual polarized grid

[Matt Liotta]

I've seen them on towers.

-Matt

Bob Moldashel wrote:


Matt Liotta wrote:


I am looking for grids!!!

-Matt

Bob Moldashel wrote:


Tessco, Hutton, Winncom, Alliance, Talley,..

Radiowave, Gabriel, RFS and Andrews all make 4' dual polarity dishes.




They don't make grids!

:-P



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] 4ft 5.8Ghz dual polarized grid

[Matt Liotta]

I can't fit larger than a 2ft solid dish because of wind load, but need 
more gain. I would expect a 4ft grid to have similar gain to a 3ft solid.


-Matt

Tom DeReggi wrote:

There are large 4ft and 6ft grid antennas on some of the towers that 
we colocate on also. But they are all for licensed frequency.  I 
pulled the model numbers off them, and called the manufacturer, and 
they did not make 5.8Ghz versions.


However, I'd argue, why would you need 5.8Ghz grids apposed to smaller 
solid parabolics of same power?  Sure windload, but if up on a tower 
where you care about windload, you'd also most likely care about the 
better front to back isolation that a Solid dish provided.


What's your application?

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 4ft 5.8Ghz dual polarized grid



Those are dishes; not grids.

-Matt

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I just ordered 7 4' Dual Pol Andrews dishes.  They are rated at 34.9 
db.

Rick Harnish
President
Supernova Technologies, Inc.
260-827-2482 Office
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Founding Member of WISPA

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 6:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 4ft 5.8Ghz dual polarized grid

32-34dbi

-Matt

Blair Davis wrote:



What kind of gain is that gonna have?

Say maybe 40db?

Matt Liotta wrote:



Anyone know where to find such a thing?

-Matt










--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] Looking for an operator in the Dallas metro area

[Matt Liotta]

We are looking for a fixed wireless operator in the Dallas metro area 
that primarily serves business customers that would be interested in a 
partner or an acquisition. Contact me offlist if you are interested.


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

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

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

Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

[Matt Liotta]

But, 3.65 isn't going to be unlicensed; it is going to be a shared 
license program. IMHO, that means that you will only have to contend 
with other operators as opposed to every consumer with a laptop.


-Matt

Charles Wu wrote:

W/out a license, 3.6 is going to work just as *bad* 


You really need 700 (or a <1 GHz band) to really get mobility / portability
in an unlicensed / uncoordinated environment

-Charles

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




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of jeffrey thomas
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 3:02 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed service to
at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors.

5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors

3.5Ghz does, to "portable" devices similar to the equipment used by
clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works indoors to
about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO. 


When you can deliver a zero truck roll model with 90% or above availablity,
is when operators by the truckload will deploy equipment. At that point, you
will see deployments in the thousands, like the ones in mexico of 750,000
homes serviced.

-

Jeff



On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:20:23 -0400, "Tom DeReggi"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
 


How do you figure?
You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that?

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message -
From: "Jeffrey Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


   


Frankly,

The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the 
industry

to
really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found is
that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will be
 


small
 


and limited deployments of wisp size and not many large scale
 


deployments
 


outside of 2.5ghz or 700 mhz operators.

-

Jeff





On 5/24/06 6:14 AM, "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

 

All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their 
Form

477s
also

The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards
"flaunting
the rules" -- namely the fact that you are just reinforcing the ILEC
argument that unlicensed spectrum just creates a bunch of "cowboys"
   


that
 


can't be taken seriously

Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink 
flamingo suit when he represents the industry in DC


-Charles

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



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of jeffrey thomas

Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:37 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


In the larger scale of things- when you compare this to a carrier
deployment
which would deliver thousands of CPE's service, this is a test. I know
   


of
 


one company that has recieved 28 STA's for 14 markets, for over 2000
   


CPE.
 




-

Jeff

On Tue, 23 May 2006 21:33:33 -0400, "Gino A. Villarini"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
   

Do you really think towerstream need 150 field units or cpes to 
"test" a single base station?


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

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

On Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:07 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Gino,

Is Towerstream doing this - using 3650 to deliver commercial 
service?


jack


Gino A. Villarini wrote:

 


Towerstream anyone ?

Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

On Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 6:56 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Jeffrey,

I have to question the "judgement ability" (or the lack of it) of 
anyone who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a 
licensed "experimental" system and using it for a commercial, 
revenue-generating purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO):


1. Someone with no business sense
2. Someone with no appreciation of (or experience with) the 
enforcement powers of the FCC

3. Someone who will likely turn out to be their own worst enemy
4. NOT someone who I could rely upon to provide me reliable,
   


long-term
 


WISP service.
  jack



jeffrey thomas wrote:


   


Patrick,

It doesnt change the fact that many have launched "limit

Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

[Matt Liotta]

Charles Wu wrote:


What do you think is going to happen?

 

Exactly the same thing that we have with 5.8Ghz, but without all the 
non-operators. While that isn't the same as mutually exclusive spectrum, 
it is a big step forward for all of us successful companies using 5.8Ghz.


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

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

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

Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

[Matt Liotta]

Splitting up the band will just make it useless and interference free.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:


You make the mistake of assuming that I am talking about an unlicensed 3.65
product Charles. We would not likely build a UL version of all that. I am in
complete agreement with you on 3.650 in terms of the end reality and utility
of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I
support essentially splitting the band.

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

-Original Message-
From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM

To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Hi Patrick,

But all the "fancy schmancy" technology you implement won't do @#$@ unless
3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the area
(including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats you for
breakfast, lunch & dinner =(

-Charles

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




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding
much higher spectral efficiency and system gain.

Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other factors
are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e version
of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base
station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a SIM
card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and
you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

 


3.5Ghz does,
   



I find that hard to believe.  2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely on

900Mhz.

What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task?

With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP or 
mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed.


Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "jeffrey thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:02 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


 

The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed 
service to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors.


5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors

3.5Ghz does, to "portable" devices similar to the equipment used by 
clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works 
indoors to about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO.


When you can deliver a zero truck roll model with 90% or above 
availablity, is when operators by the truckload will deploy equipment. 
At that point, you will see deployments in the thousands, like the 
ones in mexico of 750,000 homes serviced.


-

Jeff



On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:20:23 -0400, "Tom DeReggi" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
   


How do you figure?
You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that?

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message -
From: "Jeffrey Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


 


Frankly,

The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the
industry
to
really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found 
is
that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will be 
small
and limited deployments of wisp size and not many large scale 
deployments

outside of 2.5ghz or 700 mhz operators.

-

Jeff





On 5/24/06 6:14 AM, "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

   

All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their 
Form 477s also


The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards 
"flaunting the rules" -- namely the fact that you are just 
reinforcing the ILEC argument that unlicensed spectrum just 
creates a bunch of "cowboys" that

can't be taken seriously

Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink
flamingo
suit when he represents the industry in DC

-Charles

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



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

On
Behalf Of jeffrey thomas
Sent: T

Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

[Matt Liotta]

The radios that exist for 900Mhz today barely qualify from a delivered 
bandwidth perspective. We hardly ever lead with a 1.5Mbps service, but 
sometimes are forced to sell just 1.5Mbps because we can only make the 
shot with 900Mhz. If we were limited to 5Mhz with a 3.65Ghz radio then I 
don't see why we would use them at all. 10Mhz would at least be 
interesting, but that is too much channel space for multually exclusive 
spectrum. About the only interesting thing you can do with 5Mhz is a 
WiMAX mobile service, but it would never compete with a similar service 
operating in 2.3Ghz or 2.5Ghz (not that I think a 5Mhz WiMAX mobile 
service in those bands does much to compete with 3G anyway). 
Ultimatelly, I think a 5Mhz license is only going to create "3G me too" 
services that aren't that interesting. I know all the radio manufactures 
would love that since services that target individuals sell more radios, 
but alas, I am not a radio manufacture.


-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:


Respectfully, I do not agree. Look how much is done in UL with just 26MHz in
900MHz, most of which is not useable due to the noise of high power primary
users and consumer devices. Also, rural customers and operators should have
the ability to achieve high QoS services and not merely best effort.
Splitting the band leaves some room for both types of services.

I would also prefer the UL part of the split to be broken up into something
like 5MHz channels so gear is not sold into the market that will use the
entire swath of band from one radio UNLESS it is a P2P radio, in which case
the entire range should be usable.

Patrick 


-Original Message-----
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:58 PM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Splitting up the band will just make it useless and interference free.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:

 


You make the mistake of assuming that I am talking about an unlicensed 3.65
product Charles. We would not likely build a UL version of all that. I am
   


in
 


complete agreement with you on 3.650 in terms of the end reality and
   


utility
 


of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I
support essentially splitting the band.

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

-Original Message-
From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM

To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Hi Patrick,

But all the "fancy schmancy" technology you implement won't do @#$@ unless
3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the area
(including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats you for
breakfast, lunch & dinner =(

-Charles

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




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding
much higher spectral efficiency and system gain.

Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other factors
are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e
   


version
 


of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base
station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a
   


SIM
 


card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and
you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment



   


3.5Ghz does,
  

 


I find that hard to believe.  2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely
   


on
 


900Mhz.

What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task?

With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP or
   



 


mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed.

Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "jeffrey thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:02 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment




   

The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed 
service to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors.


5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors

3.5Gh

Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

[Matt Liotta]

There is only 50Mhz available if I recall, so how many licensees can 
their be if each is given multiple 5Mhz channels? If only one or two 
companies are allowed to play in a given market then I expect 3.65Ghz to 
miss the market.


-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:


Matt, with WiMAX, a 5GHz channel is enough to deliver over 17Mbps net (ftp
type net) per sector. I was not referring to 5MHz licenses as you assumed,
but only 5MHz PMP gear qualifying for use. You could use 20MHz if you
wanted, but each radio itself would use no more than 5MHz unless it was a
PTP radio.

Patrick 


-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 7:59 PM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

The radios that exist for 900Mhz today barely qualify from a delivered 
bandwidth perspective. We hardly ever lead with a 1.5Mbps service, but 
sometimes are forced to sell just 1.5Mbps because we can only make the 
shot with 900Mhz. If we were limited to 5Mhz with a 3.65Ghz radio then I 
don't see why we would use them at all. 10Mhz would at least be 
interesting, but that is too much channel space for multually exclusive 
spectrum. About the only interesting thing you can do with 5Mhz is a 
WiMAX mobile service, but it would never compete with a similar service 
operating in 2.3Ghz or 2.5Ghz (not that I think a 5Mhz WiMAX mobile 
service in those bands does much to compete with 3G anyway). 
Ultimatelly, I think a 5Mhz license is only going to create "3G me too" 
services that aren't that interesting. I know all the radio manufactures 
would love that since services that target individuals sell more radios, 
but alas, I am not a radio manufacture.


-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:

 


Respectfully, I do not agree. Look how much is done in UL with just 26MHz
   


in
 


900MHz, most of which is not useable due to the noise of high power primary
users and consumer devices. Also, rural customers and operators should have
the ability to achieve high QoS services and not merely best effort.
Splitting the band leaves some room for both types of services.

I would also prefer the UL part of the split to be broken up into something
like 5MHz channels so gear is not sold into the market that will use the
entire swath of band from one radio UNLESS it is a P2P radio, in which case
the entire range should be usable.

Patrick 


-Original Message-----
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:58 PM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Splitting up the band will just make it useless and interference free.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:



   


You make the mistake of assuming that I am talking about an unlicensed
 


3.65
 


product Charles. We would not likely build a UL version of all that. I am
  

 


in


   


complete agreement with you on 3.650 in terms of the end reality and
  

 


utility


   


of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I
support essentially splitting the band.

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

-Original Message-
From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM

To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Hi Patrick,

But all the "fancy schmancy" technology you implement won't do @#$@ unless
3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the area
(including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats you for
breakfast, lunch & dinner =(

-Charles

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




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding
much higher spectral efficiency and system gain.

Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other
 


factors
 


are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e
  

 


version


   


of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base
station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a
  

 


SIM


   


card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and
you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment



  

 


3.5Ghz does,
 



   


I find that hard to believe.  2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely
  

 


on


   

Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

[Matt Liotta]

I certainly understand SNR and how it effects licensed gear as well. If 
you want to operate a network of any size you are going to need at least 
3 channels. Further, even with 3 channels you will need to operate more 
than one sector on the same channel at a base station, which is 
certainly going to lower your SNR. We see this today we 5.8Ghz where 
self-interference is the only kind of interference we run into most of 
the time.


-Matt

Charles Wu wrote:


Hi Matt,

You are only limited to 1.5 Mbps service due to the fact that it is almost
impossible to achieve anything about a 10 dB SNR
In 900 Mhz -- say you had a 25+ dB SNR (e.g., how life works in licensed
bands) -- you could deliver 10-15 Mb on a 5 MHz channel

-Charles

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




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 9:59 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


The radios that exist for 900Mhz today barely qualify from a delivered 
bandwidth perspective. We hardly ever lead with a 1.5Mbps service, but 
sometimes are forced to sell just 1.5Mbps because we can only make the 
shot with 900Mhz. If we were limited to 5Mhz with a 3.65Ghz radio then I 
don't see why we would use them at all. 10Mhz would at least be 
interesting, but that is too much channel space for multually exclusive 
spectrum. About the only interesting thing you can do with 5Mhz is a 
WiMAX mobile service, but it would never compete with a similar service 
operating in 2.3Ghz or 2.5Ghz (not that I think a 5Mhz WiMAX mobile 
service in those bands does much to compete with 3G anyway). 
Ultimatelly, I think a 5Mhz license is only going to create "3G me too" 
services that aren't that interesting. I know all the radio manufactures 
would love that since services that target individuals sell more radios, 
but alas, I am not a radio manufacture.


-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:

 

Respectfully, I do not agree. Look how much is done in UL with just 
26MHz in 900MHz, most of which is not useable due to the noise of high 
power primary users and consumer devices. Also, rural customers and 
operators should have the ability to achieve high QoS services and not 
merely best effort. Splitting the band leaves some room for both types 
of services.


I would also prefer the UL part of the split to be broken up into 
something like 5MHz channels so gear is not sold into the market that 
will use the entire swath of band from one radio UNLESS it is a P2P 
radio, in which case the entire range should be usable.


Patrick

-Original Message-----
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:58 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Splitting up the band will just make it useless and interference free.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:



   

You make the mistake of assuming that I am talking about an unlicensed 
3.65 product Charles. We would not likely build a UL version of all 
that. I am
  

 


in


   


complete agreement with you on 3.650 in terms of the end reality and
  

 


utility


   

of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I 
support essentially splitting the band.


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

-Original Message-
From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Hi Patrick,

But all the "fancy schmancy" technology you implement won't do @#$@ 
unless 3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the 
area (including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats 
you for breakfast, lunch & dinner =(


-Charles

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



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
On Behalf Of Patrick Leary

Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment 
yielding much higher spectral efficiency and system gain.


Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other 
factors are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 
802.16e
  

 


version


   

of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the 
base station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE 
with a
  

 


SIM


   

card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation 
and you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna.


Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [ma