Re: [WISPA] MT bandwidth test - Need a location to test to.

[Anthony Will]

Hi Chuck,
The injection point is sitting in the middle of a field that is not the
easiest thing to access.  I don't have a PC sitting at our injection point
that has a web browser available to it.  I do have a MT edge router though.

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Chuck Hogg  wrote:

> Multiple speedtest.net servers are capable of 75+...last I did one from
> ours it read 140Mbps over one connection.
> Regards,
>
> Chuck
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Anthony Will wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Just upgraded our main pipe to 75mb.  Anyone have a server sitting on
>> enough bandwidth to spare I could test against.
>>
>> Anthony Will
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
>
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] MT bandwidth test - Need a location to test to.

[Anthony Will]

Hello,

Just upgraded our main pipe to 75mb.  Anyone have a server sitting on enough
bandwidth to spare I could test against.

Anthony Will



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Ethernet Cabling

[Anthony Will]

We use this on our towers.  The main thing is the gel fill will liquefy 
and drip into and out of the ends of the cable.  Be sure to take 
appropriate steps to mitigate the mess it leaves.  Other then that we 
will continue to use this cable for towers and running direct burial and 
through groves of trees. 

Anthony Will
Broadband Crop.
http://www.broadband-mn.com/

Josh Luthman wrote:
> That's the stuff I ordered and will use soon.
>
> On 5/27/09, 3-dB Networks  wrote:
>   
>> I'm becoming a fan of this stuff:
>>
>> http://www.superioressex.com/uploadedFiles/Communications_Cable/osp_broadban
>> d_cat5e.pdf
>>
>> Specifically the BBDGE cable.
>>
>> It's about $400 per 1000ft spool though...
>>
>> Daniel White
>> 3-dB Networks
>> http://www.3dbnetworks.com
>>
>>
>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>>> Behalf Of Michael Baird
>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 9:43 AM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: [WISPA] Ethernet Cabling
>>>
>>> We are getting ready to order ethernet cabling, and looking at some
>>> different options for the towers and client installs. I was wondering
>>> what people here liked to use. Particularily I'm interested in what you
>>> look for in shielding/water protection, should I get a flooded cable, if
>>> so with what? Will the gel filled type overheat in the sun? Should i run
>>> all of this in conduit, at least for the AP's at the towers?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Michael Baird
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>> 
>>> 
>>>
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>   
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>> 
>
>
>   



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] 3.65 ptp

[Anthony Will]

I think the main confusion here is people are mixing up the Part 15 
rules and the part 90 rules.  Part 15 the "whole" system has to be type 
certified.  In Part 90 the transmitter has to be certified along with 
other regulations.
Part 90 is a different ball game people, it is licensed and WILL be 
enforced.  Find the rules, read the rules and talk to a lawyer in the 
industry if you have any confusion.  Your business maybe at stake if you 
mess up.

Anthony Will
Broadband Corp

e...@wisp-router.com wrote:
> That is my understanding as well from talking with a certification lab. Lower 
> and equal gain antennas of same type as certified are allowed to be 
> "substituted" by the manufacturer. 
>
> /Eje
> Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
>
> -Original Message-
> From: lakel...@gbcx.net
>
> Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 00:52:36 
> To: ; WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 ptp
>
>
> As per the FCC only the anufacturer can make the determination which antenna 
> is similar in specifications. Otherwise it needs FCC certification as a 
> system.
>
> That was from the horses mouth about 18 months ago
>
> Bob
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -Original Message-
> From: "Scott Carullo" 
>
> Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 19:47:42 
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 ptp
>
>
> Who has the final word on this?  I've been told by testing laboratories 
> that do testing for the FCC that this is not the case...  They said if the 
> radio card (5Ghz when I asked but for this discussion it doesn't matter) 
> had been approved with an antenna then you could use the same or less db 
> like antenna and you were good to go - assuming the card manufacturer (like 
> ubiquity) had had appropriate testing completed and filed with FCC.
>
> It sure is difficult for any of us to make heads or tales out of what can 
> or can't be done because everyone has a different opinion - even the people 
> at the top of the food chain I guess.
>
> Who's right?  And how am I supposed to know? 
>
> Scott Carullo
> Brevard Wireless
> 321-205-1100 x102
>
>  Original Message 
>   
>> From: "Harold Bledsoe" 
>> Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 2:21 PM
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 ptp
>>
>> I think the confusion on this comes from the fact that for the P90
>> licensing process, only the transmitter information is collected.
>> Remember that even with Part 90 devices, they still must comply with
>> Part 15 requirements for unintentional radiators.  This is covered with
>> a Declaration of Conformity for the system typically.
>>
>> So the previous example of the XR3 + ARC + RB411 + PoE (sic) is
>> technically only legal if it meets all Part 90 requirements (which it
>> should according to the test report on file at the FCC) as well as Part
>> 15 requirements for unintentional radiators.  In this case, a
>> Declaration of Conformity should be on file at the assembler's location.
>>
>> This is why the label is important.  This kind of system built from
>> modular components should include a label with a manufacturer name/model
>> number, the contains FCC ID: xx, and the 2 required statements about
>> unintentional interference.  This information tells anyone including the
>> FCC who to contact for intentional emission issues (P-90 in this
>> example) as well as unintentional emission issues (P-15 in this case).
>> If there is no label on there, then it is illegal by default.  Then if
>> there are problems with the intentional radiator, it is the module
>> maker's problem (assuming the integration instructions were followed
>> properly).  Finally if there are problems with the unintentional
>> emissions, it is the system assembler's problem.
>>
>> I know, I knowthis is a licensed, Part 90 band.  So why does Part 15
>> even matter?  Simply put, P-90 covers the transmitter, P-15 covers the
>> rest of the crap spewing from the device in the rest of the
>> spectrum.  :-)
>>
>> -Hal
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: David E. Smith 
>> Reply-To: WISPA General List 
>> To: WISPA General List 
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 ptp
>> Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2009 18:05:36 GMT
>>
>> 
>>> My system is fully licensed. 
>>>   
>> How did you get your combination of "XR3
>> + Routerboard 400 series + Mikrotik RouterOS 3.x + whatever antenna"
>> certified? What's the process like, and how much did it cost?Or did you
>> jus

Re: [WISPA] Anybody use Aperto for 3.65GHz? I'd like to knowwhatyouthink.

[Anthony Will]

So from the sound of this I should be looking at LTE as my next 
technology solution?  Keeping in mind the LTE still is not here?  Also 
keeping in mind that it will likely never be developed in an unlicensed 
spectrum solution except for maybe TV White spaces since the current 
networks that are deploying expect to use 700mhz as their solution.  
What does WiMAX even bring to the table then?  The only spectrum to 
reliably deploy it in is 25mhz of 3650 spectrum since it is not 
interference tolerant.  That seems like a large investment for such a 
small amount of spectrum especially since there are more cost effective 
products out today that are as good or better than WiMAX on the table, 
for many more bands of spectrum. 
I guess my real question is why WiMAX?

PS I really would like to deploy WiMAX and expect to, but I am looking 
exclusively at .e since it is the only standard still being actively 
worked on that I am aware of. 

Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.

John Rock wrote:
> Well said Patrick...
> I would like to add - as a whole the industry uses the word "mobility" all
> the time and has used that pretense of mobile broadband coverage anywhere
> you go as a staple to the word WiMAX. The truth is WiMAX from about any of
> the WiMAX manufacturers has made great improvements in QoS and receive
> sensitivities with the use of smarter antenna technology but still fall
> short in the realm of seamless mobility most of us have grown to expect with
> our cell phones/hand held devices. That is 802.16d
> 802.16e offers the "promise" of mobility in a seamless sense, meaning
> roaming from tower to tower or sector to sector without any noticeable drop
> in service. Wow I wish my cell phone never dropped a call. That may sound
> great but like Patrick said the carrier groups that can maybe afford the
> costs of the huge build out required to have that type of coverage have
> their ties to LTE technology or are tied up with the tough economic times as
> we all are.
>
> Now let's look at the present technology of 802.16d and Aperto as this
> thread entails. I can drive from one town to another and get associated and
> pass data(12Mbx8Mb). Since I drove with a CPE in my car and mobile antenna
> on my roof that makes me mobile on that network right. So I may have dropped
> a few packets as I roamed from site to site but as long as I can get IP back
> up everything is good. Aperto has a very reliable cost effective solution
> today for 3.65GHz and like any manufacture it has the functionality of WiMAX
> which helps a ton with service profiling for your customers. If people are
> not using some sort of 802.16(WiMAX) product they are falling behind in the
> exciting future of the Wireless Marketplace.
>
> Now a WiMAX rant, not sure if the WiMAX Forums ears are open but, I am
> disappointed that I do not have a CPE(802.16d) that can link to anyone's
> Base Stations. Sure with the onset of 802.16e that is supposed to work but
> the lack of earlier interoperability that the WiMAX forum promised from the
> onset has been disappointing to me. If we had interoperable systems like the
> essence of WiFi with the current WiMAX systems the marketplace may have been
> quicker to embrace the technology and great strides could have been made for
> network roaming already. Roaming agreements could already be in place if
> interoperability was the true focus from the beginning. End WiMAX rant
>
>
> John Rock
> Director of Operations - Senior Engineer
> Wireless Connections
> 166 Milan Ave., Norwalk, Oh. 44857 
> ACCessing the Future Today!!
> ofc. 419.660.6100
> cell 419-706-7356
> fax  419-668-4077
> http://www.wirelessconnections.net
> This transmission and any files attached to it, may contain confidential
> and/or privileged information and intended only for the named recipient. If
> you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
> disclosure, reproduction, retransmission, dissemination, disclosure, copying
> or any use of the information or files contained is strictly prohibited. If
> you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by
> reply transmission and delete this electronic mail.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Patrick Leary
> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 3:00 PM
> To: can...@believewireless.net; WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Anybody use Aperto for 3.65GHz? I'd like to
> knowwhatyouthink.
>
> It's a fair question and it bugs me too. Fact is, I was a more than a
> bit blind and thought I was more objective than I really was. Also,
> since then the economy and other conditions has conspired to kick e in
> the teeth a bit. I still belie

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

[Anthony Will]

It is also seems to be citing that way over used and mostly irrelevant 
OECD statistics.  
http://www.ultra-high-speed-mn.org/CM/MeetingAgendasandMinutes/MeetingAgendasandMinutes54.asp
Had a presentation and there are links to a power point and very 
extensive study on the OECD numbers by Scott Wallsten a Berkly grad 
working with http://www.techpolicyinstitute.org/ .  In the end when all 
counties have 100% penetration due to household size the US will be 
ranted around 18th in the world. 
But it just sells papers to have the US look bad I guess. 

Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.

rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote:
> I'd like to ponit out that the article leaves out some information, and it 
> leaves you with a false impression because of it.  It made note of the 
> "price" of broadband being cheaper in Japan and other places.   That's true, 
> but much of the infrastructure was funded by tax dollars, instead of the 
> customers of the ISP's.
>
> I believe if this were properly acounted for, internet would be cheapest in 
> the US, and more everywhere else.   It's not the price, it's the COST that 
> matters, and cost must include the publicly financed portions of the 
> equation.   Everyone pays for that, not everyone uses it, and that cost is 
> rarely factored in these articles.   That leaves a false impression of it 
> being cheap, which it is not and has not ever been.
>
>
>
>
> 
> 
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Jeff Broadwick" 
> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 8:38 AM
> Subject: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
>
>
>   
>> Congress Approves Broadband to Nowhere
>> Why the U.S. lags in Internet speed.
>>
>>*
>>  By L. GORDON CROVITZ
>>
>>
>> In Japan, wireless technology works so well that teenagers draft novels on
>> their cellphones. People in Hong Kong take it for granted that they can
>> check their BlackBerrys from underground in the city's subway cars. Even 
>> in
>> France, consumers have more choices for broadband service than in the U.S.
>>
>> The Internet may have been developed in the U.S., but the country now 
>> ranks
>> 15th in the world for broadband penetration. For those who do have access 
>> to
>> broadband, the average speed is a crawl, moving bits at a speed roughly
>> one-tenth that of top-ranked Japan. This means a movie that can be
>> downloaded in a couple of seconds in Japan takes half an hour in the U.S.
>> The BMW 7 series comes equipped with Internet access in Germany, but not 
>> in
>> the U.S.
>> The Opinion Journal Widget
>>
>> Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important 
>> editorials
>> and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.
>>
>> So those of us otherwise wary of how wisely the stimulus package will be
>> spent were happy to suspend disbelief when Congress invited ideas on how 
>> to
>> upgrade broadband. Maybe there are shovel-ready programs to bring 
>> broadband
>> to communities that private providers have not yet reached, and to upgrade
>> the speed of accessing the Web. These goals sound like the digital-era
>> version of Eisenhower's interstate highway projects, this time bringing
>> Americans as consumers and businesspeople closer together on a faster
>> information highway.
>>
>> But broadband, once thought to be in line for $100 billion as part of the
>> stimulus legislation, ended up a low priority, set to get well under $10
>> billion in the package of over $800 billion. This is a reminder that even
>> with a new president whose platform focused on technology, and even with 
>> the
>> fully open spigot of a stimulus bill, technology gets built by private
>> capital and initiative and not by government.
>>
>> The relatively small appropriation is not for want of trying. A partial 
>> list
>> of the lobbying groups involved in the process is a reminder of how
>> Washington's return to industrial policy requires lobbying by all: the
>> Information Technology Industry Council, Telecommunications Industry
>> Association, National Cable & Telecommunications Association,
>> Fiber-to-the-Home Council, National Association of Telecommunications
>> Officers and Advisors, National Telecommunications Cooperative 
>> Association,
>> Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance and Organization for
>> the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies.
>>
>> The result was a relatively paltry $6 billion for 

[WISPA] Billing and process management system

[Anthony Will]

Hello
I need a new billing / CRM solution.  What are all of you using at this 
time and is it going to scale with you? 
I dont mind if it is not all under one program.  If I have to pay 
someone to customize something I don't care I just need something that 
works.  WILL PAY FOR IT. 
Some things it has to have:
A system that integrates with a bandwidth management and auto shutdown 
for delinquent accounts.
Can process a customer form lead to install and handle trouble tickets 
afterward including installer scheduling.
Can actually accurately and consistently send a bill by email to a 
customer... <- major importance.
Credit Card processing.
Decent and totally customizable report generating system.
Customer portal.

Things that would be a bonus
Inventory management
Network monitoring


I apologize for the cross post,
Anthony Will
Broadband Corp
http://www.broadband-mn.com/





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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] heavy usage customers

[Anthony Will]

With Canopy, and a correctly configured polling AP there is no 
competition for time slices unless the AP is overloaded.  This is how 
the latency is consistent.  Canopy has what is called control slots.  
This is a predetermined time that the SM is allowed to ask for 
resources.  Increasing control slots can decrease overall bandwidth 
available by using up an additional time slice but allows for the 
latency to be consistent no matter the load.  Basically the latency is 
built into the polling system.  That is why a Trango, wifi and other 
solutions have a starting latency of 4ms vs Canopy at 8ms.  The issues 
is the busier the Trango, wifi etc. get the higher the latency gets as 
the SM / CPE are asking for the AP's attention over top each other. 

Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.

Tom DeReggi wrote:
> Guaranteeing latency
>
> One of the things we learned is that the ISP can't measure the customer's 
> experience of latency accurately. And if the can;t measure it, they cant 
> guarantee it.
> When pings initiate from the AP side, they always send without delay.
> When pings initiate from the SU side, they can be delayed from the polling 
> or competing for their timeslice to transmit.
>
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 11:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] heavy usage customers
>
>
>   
>> Hi,
>>
>> We don't use DHCP. Every single customer gets a real, static IP address.
>> We also a assign a static IP address to every radio (for management).
>>
>> When I posted the question a month ago about how to force an SM to
>> connect to a specific AP on a tower, the only answer was "color code".
>> This isn't really an option, as that means the installer has to change
>> the color code in the field. All of our current radios are setup and
>> ready to connect to ANY tower and ANY AP on that tower without the
>> installer doing anything in the field.
>>
>> And how does first level tech support even find the correct radio in the
>> AP list for a customer on the phone? They have to scroll through 160
>> people to find them by MAC address?
>>
>> Yes, Canopy is a slower radio in today's world. 14Mbps of total
>> throughput on a 20mhz channel is SLOW. Using Mikrotik I can get 30Mbps
>> (double the speed) on the same channel size. Or I can use a 10mhz
>> channel and get 15Mbps. And all these speeds can be delivered via upload
>> or download or any combination, I don't have to set a specific
>> percentage of up/down.
>>
>> And how do you guarantee 7ms latency? What happens if a customer gets
>> 8ms? And how do they test that measurement? And what happens when a
>> customer completely clobbers an AP and 160 customers are getting 20ms
>> latency? Or you have interference from a new provider and all those
>> people get 100ms latency?
>>
>> Travis
>> Microserv
>>
>>
>> Chuck McCown - 3 wrote:
>> 
>>> All of the complaints are easily overcome with the proper management 
>>> software, DHCP reservations etc.  You can easily force the SM to connect 
>>> to the exact AP you want a couple different ways.  And there are several 
>>> non motorola software packages that do this kind of stuff.  We have 5000 
>>> subs on it and we don't break a sweat in managing any of this.
>>>
>>> We put 128-160 customers per AP and they all still get 10.2 Mbps burst. 
>>> Slower radio?  That seems pretty fast to me.
>>> And we guarantee latency to 7 mS.  Hmmm, that is pretty hard to do with 
>>> anyone else.
>>>   - Original Message - 
>>>   From: Travis Johnson
>>>   To: WISPA General List
>>>   Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 1:39 PM
>>>   Subject: Re: [WISPA] heavy usage customers
>>>
>>>
>>>   We've tried Canopy... twice in fact... once about 3 years ago, and once 
>>> about a month ago. We just can't make it fit into our network management 
>>> (IP database, Call tracking, customer management, etc.) system very 
>>> well... having customer radios that change their LUID and IP address 
>>> every time they register, having to set the bandwidth on each SM instead 
>>> of the AP, having no security or ways to control which AP a customer 
>>> connects to without having to buy their software, etc.
>>>
>>>   All that, plus paying MORE for a slower radio than what we

Re: [WISPA] wierd ap issue - ap thinks default plug is in

[Anthony Will]

We have seen this when a spider makes it's home in the enclosure and 
it's webbing shorts the default wiring.
If rebooting does not resolve you can expect a climb on this one.  
Before climbing physically disconnect the power to reboot the unit just 
to be sure. 
Your customers are not working?  This would lead me to believe there are 
greater issues in play here.  The default plug should only reset the 
password and IP address to the system default.  It should not have 
changed color code or disabled the units ability to pass traffic.  I 
could be wrong on that as I have never defaulted an AP before. 

Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.

Wisp wrote:
> Latest firmware, no sync cable, we sync over power
> Already replaced it but I will try reflashing firmware to see if that  
> fixes it
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 18, 2008, at 8:23 AM, Eric Muehleisen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   
>> I've seen this happen in the past. Do you have a sync cable plugged  
>> into
>> the sync port? Have you tried upgrading firmware?
>>
>> -Eric
>>
>> WISP wrote:
>> 
>>> I had to reboot one of my towers tonight and when the access point  
>>> came back with "Default plug overrides configured parameters"
>>> Since this P10 AP has been up for 7 months, and rebooted 20 times  
>>> or so and no tower climbs, I am fairly certain that it doesn't have  
>>> a default plug in it.
>>>
>>> Has anyone ever seen this and if so, is there any fix.
>>> My awesome motorola support guy told me after my description of it  
>>> says the default plug is in was to replace the unit.  Is there any  
>>> way to have the ap ignore the default plug temporarily so that I  
>>> can have it working until I can get up the tower.
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> Cliff
>>>
>>>
>>> --- 
>>> --- 
>>> --- 
>>> --- 
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>> --- 
>>> --- 
>>> --- 
>>> --- 
>>> 
>>>
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>
>> --- 
>> --- 
>> --- 
>> --- 
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> --- 
>> --- 
>> --- 
>> --- 
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>> 
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>   



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] NOGO's

[Anthony Will]

10% nogo that gets databased and mapped for future wireless site 
planning  and marketing efforts.
Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.
http://www.broadband-mn.com/

Travis Johnson wrote:
> Along a different line... What is everyone's percentage on NOGO's 
> (that's what we call people we try to install and can't get a good 
> enough signal)? Ours was quite a bit higher than I thought when I looked 
> a few days ago... Out of 1,500+ completed installs during the last 12 
> months, we had 208 people we couldn't install successfully. If we only 
> had more time to find more tower locations... :(
>
> Travis
> Microserv
>
> Chuck McCown - 3 wrote:
>   
>> We always assume we will get a signal.  We are rarely wrong.
>>   - Original Message - 
>>   From: Travis Johnson 
>>   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; WISPA General List 
>>   Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 9:07 PM
>>   Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Tranzeo] New Update - Tranzeo/Mtik 
>> disconnectissueOct7th, 2008
>>
>>
>>   So there are people that don't roll a truck because some software says you 
>> may not be able to get a connection? That seems like a pretty poor idea to 
>> me... we have clients that we had to try 3 or 4 different towers with 2 or 3 
>> different frequencies before we get a good signal. This "tool" may have 
>> disqualified that customer, yet we got them installed.
>>
>>   Plus, how do you know if you want to make their location your next 
>> repeater to service that area if you just tell them no over the phone? ;)
>>
>>   Travis
>>   Microserv
>>
>>   Brian Webster wrote: 
>> On the topic of knowing if the lead was qualified and you could offer
>> service to that lead location (start shameless plug), I know of a company
>> that can provide you with an inexpensive tool to do a lookup by address and
>> give the answer while still on the phone.. As some of the folks on this
>> list who already use it for their opinion of how well it works and increases
>> productivity and decrease truck rolls to bad installs.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank You,
>> Brian Webster
>> www.wirelessmapping.com <http://www.wirelessmapping.com>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Behalf Of RickG
>> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 10:46 PM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Tranzeo] New Update - Tranzeo/Mtik
>> disconnectissueOct7th, 2008
>>
>>
>> Great post Tom!
>> As I mentioned earlier, we used to give $20. A study by my marketing
>> person showed 90% of our new installs were referrals. The interesting
>> part was when asked, the referrer said they would've provided the
>> referral whether or not the $20 was offered.
>> -RickG
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>   1. Anyone have any idea what percentage of customers provide referrals,
>> with
>>   a program like "free month for each referral"?
>>
>> 2. Has anyone asked their customers that have not provided referrals, what
>> would be adequate incentive for them to be willing to?
>>
>> 3. How well do these programs work for residential versus business?
>>
>> I'm just asking because... Some of our customers have said that the did
>> not
>>   refer because
>> a)  its against their corporate policy to give referrals.
>> b) afraid their service would slow down because, there would be less
>> capacity available to themselves afterwords.
>> c) they did not want to be held accountable for their implied indorsement,
>> if service for the new referred to company did not work out well.
>> d) the compensation amounts were not significant enough for them to extend
>> the effort, or track it..
>> e) There job was not to be our salesman, that was our job.
>> f) They already refer, and they'd already do that regardless of getting
>> any
>>   payment compensation, so compensation unnecessary. They'd rather us put
>> that
>>   money into maintaining/upgrading our network.
>> g) It was unclear whether the appropriate person would get compensation.
>> For
>>   example, if a employee made the referral, they personally would have very
>> little benefit for their employer to save and get a month free.
>>
>> What I'm most interested in is What would encourage a higher number of
>> customers to start referring "qualified" leads.
>>
>> One potential negative

Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo/Mtik disconnect issue...

[Anthony Will]

Try pinging the NS2's with 512k or larger packets and see if they 
associate at a higher level.  It might be showing that when there is not 
communication with any wi-fi device it operates in 1mb mode for basic 
association communication. 
If it changes to what you would expect then I would not be to worried 
about it.  If it stays then be afraid... be very afraid or at least make 
sure you have the newest firmware on them and see if that helps.

Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.
http://www.broadband-mn.com



Blair Davis wrote:
> I am starting to wounder about this issue myself
>
> Sunday, I replaced an old,(6 years in service!), Hermes I based AP, 
> (base mounted radio, top mounted 1W amp, 150ft LMR-400) with a top 
> mounted RB532A 5.8GHz backhaul and 2.4GHz AP.
>
> The radio card for the AP is an XR2 into a 9db Comet omni.  8ft of 
> LMR-400.  Set in B/G mode.  Preamble set to both.  CH9.  All other 
> settings, except ESSID are default.
>
> Connected to this AP was quite a mixture of clients, including:
>
> Tranzeo CPE-80, CPE-90, CPE-200, CPE-CPQ
> Lucent Hermes I client
> Senao CB3, EOC-2260
> Ubquity NS2
>
> Notes on the change.
>
> Sig strength reported by the mt range from -51 to -92
> Thruput on the AP tripled. tests to my laptop while standing at the 
> base exceeded 7Mb/sec which saturated my fiber.  tests before the 
> change could not exceed 2Mb/sec.
> The Tranzeo cpe-80 would not stay connected.  it would connect and 
> disconnect on a 5 sec cycle.  replaced it with an eoc-2260
> The B clients, all 6 of them, have stayed connected since power up.
> The NS2's, all 5 of them, seem to disconnect/reconnect in a block once 
> or so a day.
> some of the remaining G clients, 4 of them, seem to 
> disconnect/reconnect  in a block in 8-9 hours
> the remaining G clients, 4 of them, are all over the place.  from 18 
> hours to 1 hour.  I would not read too much into this however, as some 
> of my users power their radios down when not in use.
> The NS2's are all reported with anything  from 1Mbps to 54Mbps as the 
> tx rate but are always reported with 1mbps as the rx rate
> The NS2's are all reported with a radio name.  Nothing else shows a 
> radio name.
>
> The things I wounder about are the radio names not being reported, and 
> the NS2's showing a 1Mbps rx rate all the time.
>
> Hope some find this useful, and any comments would be appreciated.
>
> Blair
>
>
> Travis Johnson wrote:
>> This is NOT just a MT/Tranzeo issue. If you search the forums, people 
>> were talking about this issue over 6 months ago with various clients. 
>> We are running 100% MT (AP and clients) and we see the issue across 
>> ALL of our AP's.
>>
>> Travis
>> Microserv
>>
>> D. Ryan Spott wrote:
>>> Steve and Eje,
>>>
>>> There is a bit of a forum thread here describing the issue:
>>>
>>> http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=24971
>>>
>>> Tranzeo and Mtik are working on it.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 2, 2008, at 5:19 AM, Steve Barnes wrote:
>>>
>>>   
>>>> So let me get this right. If you have Tranzeo CPE's you only use  
>>>> StarOS.
>>>> MT does not work.  Does Mikrotik even acknowledge that this is a issue
>>>> and do they have plans to fix it.
>>>>
>>>> Part of the issue is I could not make Cisco VPN's work with StarOS  
>>>> V3 AP
>>>> and a Tranzeo CPE.  Had to change to a StarOS CPE.  Now I changed to  
>>>> the
>>>> MT AP and the StarOS CPE didn't work right. So I changed the CPE  
>>>> back to
>>>> a Tranzeo, VPN's work great now but the Tower reboots.  ARG!
>>>>
>>>> Steve Barnes
>>>> Executive Manager
>>>> PCS-WIN
>>>> RCWiFi Wireless Internet Service
>>>> (765)584-2288
>>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]  
>>>> On
>>>> Behalf Of Mark Nash
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 9:50 PM
>>>> To: WISPA General List
>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo/Mtik disconnect issue...
>>>>
>>>> I do wish the Tranzeos had a ping watchdog feature...
>>>> - Original Message -
>>>> From: "Eje Gustafsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 6:27 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo/Mtik disconnect issue...
>>>>
>>

Re: [WISPA] Taxes

[Anthony Will]

There are very few states that are allowed to tax Internet.  Texas is 
the only one I can think of off the top of my head.


   From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Tax_Nondiscrimination_Act#column-one>, 
search 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Tax_Nondiscrimination_Act#searchInput>

The *Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act*, Pub.L. 108-435 
<http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ435.108>,
 
is the current U.S. federal law that bans Internet taxes 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_taxes> in the United States. 
Signed into law on December 3 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_3>, 
2004 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004>, by George W. Bush 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush>, it extended until 2007 
the then-current moratorium <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moratorium> on 
new and discriminatory taxes on the Internet 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_taxes>. It also extended the 
federal prohibition against state and local Internet access taxes until 
November 2007.


The law's co-authors were Representative 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives> 
Chris Cox <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Cox> (R 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Republican_Party>-California 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California>), Senator 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senator> George Allen 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Allen_%28U.S._politician%29> 
(R-Virginia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia>), and Senator 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senator> Ron Wyden 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyden> (D 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Democratic_Party>-Oregon 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon>).

The law was supported by a congressionally-sponsored study commission 
known as the Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce, which studied 
Internet taxes in 1999 and 2000. The Commission was chaired by 
then-Virginia Governor James S. Gilmore, III, who led a coalition of 
Commission members to issue a final report opposing taxation of the 
Internet and eliminating federal telephone taxes, among other ideas.

On November 1, 2007, President Bush signed the "Internet Tax Freedom Act 
Amendment Acts of 2007" into law. It extends the prohibitions against 
multiple and discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce until November 
1, 2014.

Here is the original act
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ435.108


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.
http://www.broadband-mn.com



Paul Kralovec wrote:
> Indiana is particularly aggressive on the collection of sales and use taxes,
> as I learned from personal experience. 
>
> Paul D. Kralovec
> President
> Unplugged Cities, LLC
> 800 Washington Ave No
> Suite 501
> Minneapolis, MN 55401
>  
> W: 763-235-3001
> F:  763-647-7998
> C:  952-270-9107
> www.unpluggedcities.com
>  
> IMPORTANT NOTICES: Confidential Information. The information contained in or
> attached to this e-mail may be confidential information subject to
> protection by law or terms of applicable confidentiality agreements, and is
> intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the
> reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or
> agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
> notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
> communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the addressee indicated
> in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person),
> you should destroy this message and notify the sender by reply email.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 11:24 AM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Taxes
>
> Well I was told by the Indiana state tax department that all communications
> including internet access should be charged sales tax. Although I don't know
> anyone here doing that.
>
> John Buwa
> Michiana Wireless
>
>
>   
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>> Behalf Of Anthony Will
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 10:02 AM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Taxes
>>
>> Any Internet except for a few grandfathered states is tax except by
>> Federal law.
>> Phone services are taxed to the end of the world, USF, State, Federal
>> etc. this includes VOIP.
>>

Re: [WISPA] Taxes

[Anthony Will]

Any Internet except for a few grandfathered states is tax except by 
Federal law.
Phone services are taxed to the end of the world, USF, State, Federal 
etc. this includes VOIP. 

Disclaimer, I am not a tax attorney nor do I play one on the boob tube 
or even youtube.

Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.
http://www.broadband-mn.com



Mike Hammett wrote:
> Are wireless Internet or VoIP services taxable?
>
>
> --
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>   



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] I want to port their numbers!!!!

[Anthony Will]

If you take a look at the exemption they have to have less then 50,000 
phone numbers or lines.  I can't remember which.
Do a bit of research on it and find the exact clause that enables them 
to do that.  Most likely they are to large to qualify.  Then send them a 
nice letter from a nice attorney.  Also be ready for the long haul.  
They will fight it just to keep you and others from coming in if they 
are in the right or not.  It would be a good idea to find some others in 
your area with a interest in this such as the local cable company or 
others that would want the same thing.  Pool your resource and make it 
look like you and your partners are as big as they come. 

Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.
http://www.broadband-mn.com



John McDowell wrote:
> Local Cooperative Telco will not let us port. What is my work around?
>
> Order PRI to our tower in their territory? We're working with VoxCorp, so
> they have to be able to grab those numbers even if we do something like
> this..
>
> Verizon  Wireless has local numbers with this company for their cellular,
> and it has to be because they have towers in their territory with PRIs???
>
> Somebody have a solution?
>
>   



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] 3650 XR3 locations

[Anthony Will]

Not to burst a bubble but the special "type certification" that is part 
of part-15 was created for unlicensed solutions.  Most license holders 
are responsible for the equipment that is in use. Thus the equipment is 
only certified to meet special regs of the band, unlike unlicensed where 
the majority of the responsibility is on the manufacture. 

Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.
http://www.broadband-mn.com



Kurt Fankhauser wrote:
> Exactly, with that attitude from the FCC then all of my network is 100% FCC
> certified because all the radio's have an FCC number on them, I would just
> have to put that number on the outside of the rootenna.
>
> Kurt Fankhauser
> WAVELINC
> P.O. Box 126
> Bucyrus, OH 44820
> 419-562-6405
> www.wavelinc.com
>  
>  
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Butch Evans
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 11:57 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 XR3 locations
>
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Kyle Duren wrote:
>
>   
>> *Response: *
>> 
>
>   
>> Since the device is already certified, it can be installed into a 
>> final basestation without further approval, as long as the FCCID 
>> label is attached on the outside of the final product.  However, if 
>> your company wishes to obtain it's own FCC number for the final 
>> product, then you must apply for an original FCCID.
>> 
>
> WOW!  I wonder if this type of flexibility carries over to 2.4 and 
> 5gig.  I know this has been a REALLY contentious question, but if 
> that's the response in 3.65, I have to question the reality of FCC 
> views in other bands that are NOT licensed.
>
>   



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Fw: CTIA urges FCC to license -- and auction -- TV white spaces: Daily Update

[Anthony Will]

You show that value by the economic impact of every wifi, microwave, 
wireless phone, invisible dog fence ever sold and the tax revenue 
generated from those items.  You also show how 2.4ghz is utilized vs EBS 
or BBS spectrum, or any other spectrum for that matter. 

Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.
http://www.broadband-mn.com



Tom DeReggi wrote:
> AMEN, Jack.
>
> And that is the message we need to get to Congress, FCC, and more 
> importantly the Press.
>
> There is no better proof, than the 700Mhz auction, to what happens when it 
> goes to Auction.
> Save the WhiteSpaces, is about preserving the American way of Free 
> Enterprise for small business, Enabling Competition and Choice for 
> consumers..
>
> The tough problem is argueing why the government can fairly give it away, 
> after equivellent valued spectrum was just sold for Billions.
> Governement is big on consistency and equal treatment.
>
> Does anyone have any stats on how much revenue the FCC brought in for 
> Licensed Part 101 over the years, so far?
> I'm just wondering what arguement could be made for alternate Licensing 
> scemes.
> How can we show the Billions of value, that consumers would gain, if it were 
> Unlicenced?
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 5:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: CTIA urges FCC to license -- and auction -- TV 
> white spaces: Daily Update
>
>
>   
>> Thanks for the update. This link might be a little easier for some to
>> follow.
>>
>> <http://www.rcrnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080327/FREE/120719096/1007>
>>
>> Of course the telco incumbents who now own the cellular "wireless"
>> industry want to auction the TV white space. They just snagged the 700
>> MHz spectrum because they know how to borrow billions of dollars to win
>> licenses at auction.
>>
>> Licensing the TV white space would give AT&T and Verizon a total lock on
>> all the remaining spectrum that the "real" WISP industry could use to
>> compete with AT&T and Verizon. Auctioning this spectrum could well spell
>> the end of the "real" WISP business.
>>
>> What is the "real" WISP business??? It is WISPs as we know them today,
>> the broadband wireless pioneers who proved that wireless broadband would
>> really work to deliver Internet access. AT&T and Verizon consider
>> themselves as broadband wireless providers also (3G is certainly
>> broadband wireless). They just don't call themselves "WISPs". The
>> incumbent telco/cellular monopolists would just love use their big bucks
>> and corporate lobbying power to finally kill their off their competitors
>> who legitimized the broadband wireless industry in the first place.
>>
>> jack
>>
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> 
>>> Fyi. Boys and girls
>>> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>> -- 
>> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
>> Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
>> Author of the Cisco Press Book - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs"
>> Vendor-Neutral Wireless Training-Design-Troubleshooting-Consulting
>> FCC License # PG-12-25133
>> Phone 818-227-4220   Email <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG.
>> Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1 - Release Date: 3/26/2008 
>> 12:00 AM
>>
>>
>> 
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>   



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] MT tools

[Anthony Will]

Under tools in winbox there are several solutions from ping floods to 
torch (a per stream traffic analyzer), under the interface you can look 
at the status tab to get CCQ (quality) readings to exactly how much 
traffic is being compressed by hardware data compression.  In a terminal 
it would be under /tool or /interface wireless.
Is there something specific you are looking for?

Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.
http://www.broadband-mn.com



Dennis Burgess - Link Techs Inc wrote:
> What kind of information do you need?
>
>
> Dennis M. Burgess
> Mikrotik Certified Consultant
> Link Technologies, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri
> --WISP/Network Support Services--
> +1 314-686-1302
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Travis Johnson
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 12:52 PM
> To: WISPA General List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [WISPA] MT tools
>
> Hi,
>
> Has anyone found any good tools to do troubleshooting on Mikrotik 
> wireless links? Many other vendors provide tools (i.e. Trango has "su 
> ping", "testrflink" and "linktest") that allow testing of an individual 
> wireless link directly from the AP. The only thing I have found with 
> Mikrotik is their bandwidth test and it doesn't show much information.
>
> Any help or ideas are appreciated.
>
> Travis
> Microserv
>
>
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>   



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] OT......Question

[Anthony Will]

Dell and HP still sell XP.  They are big enough to make Microsoft bend 
on the Vista release issues.  We only have this month left though as far 
as I can tell.  My bet is if SP1 doesn't resolve most of the issues with 
Vista that Dell and the like will continue to pressure MS for a XP 
solution.  This being mostly for business workstations. 


http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,130657-c,xp/article.html
http://www.osnews.com/story.php/17733/Dell-Resumes-Windows-XP-Sales-MS-To-Sell-Software-for-Cheap/

Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.
http://www.broadband-mn.com



Jeff Broadwick wrote:
Is it still possible to buy a new computer and use XP? 


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 6:23 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT..Question

Games.


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


- Original Message -
From: "Jonathan Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 7:38 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] OT..Question


  

We've standardized on XP/PRO SP2 for the office.

We tried Vista and, although some fanatics show it can be a bit but
definitely slower, that's not meaningful.

The computers, themselves, suffer intractable problems with Vista with 
less

than 2G memory, but with that memory or more, it's OK.  (Why it becomes
unstable under 2Gb is the subject of wild, physical arguments).

We haven't had driver problems.

We have had significantly more hang-ups with Vista.  Not many, but perhaps
50% more.

The GUI is, perhaps, more intuitive but it splits functionality that was, 
in
XP, in one place into several far flung places.  It may make more sense 
but

drives the old folks (over 20 years old) crazy.

The reallocation of facilities that were in XP-HOME and XP-PRO into
fragmented pieces within an array of options of Vista upgrades is driving
the support guys nuts.  Ordinary users who had a handle on XP are now
calling support.

The removal of OUTLOOK 2007 from Student/Teacher 2007 meant that folks 
with

a teacher wife and student kids can't use it for work.  That just makes
people mad at Microsoft.

Since we stick with Lenovo/IBM for laptops, etc., we can still order 
XP/PRO

(at a small cost).

It doesn't appear that "VISTA" was a good business/technical decision on
Microsoft's part but I'm sure it will pay off through the sales of new 
PCs.


It's not the end of the world...it just appears dumb...really dumb.

It turns out that Macintosh computers with Microsoft Office have been more
and more popular and we accept that for our system.  They have caused no
problems...perhaps because the Mac-fanatics stick together and 
aggressively

help each other the way early PC users used to do.  There are only a tiny
fraction of PC users that utilize applications that aren't available on
Macintosh as the same or better.  That argument doesn't fly anymore.

. . . J o n a t h a n



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 7:02 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT..Question

Hi,

Every single test out there shows Vista is SLOWER on an identical machine
running XP. Why would I "upgrade" to an OS that is slower?

Travis
Microserv

Mike Hammett wrote:


Agreed.  This happens with every OS release...  It's OH SO HORRIBLE...
but then in a year or so, everyone forgets their fabricated fears.
I've been using Vista for about 4 months and have 0 issues with Vista
itself.  Sure, I've had problems with vendors who are slow to update
software\drivers, but that's not Microsoft's fault...  that's the
fault of lazy vendors *cough* DELL *cough*.


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


- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT..Question


  

In a message dated 12/9/2007 11:25:05 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

dreaded  MS Vista


Why is everyone so down on Vista?  I have been using it for a long
time, starting with the Beta Version-now using the Ultimate Version,
without problems [laptops and PC's].  I think it is more a learning
curve with so many changes from the earlier versions.  Vista is here
to stay and you  should be learning it-not going backwards.


Walter W.  Stumpf Jr.
Xanadu Group Inc.
179 Statesville Quarry Road
Lafayette NJ  07848-3128 USA
973-702-3899
fax  775-667-1995




**Check out AOL's list of 2007's
hottest products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop000300
0001)

Re: [WISPA] Reducing per customer costs

[Anthony Will]

Just to stay in line with the thought.  at $25 per month that would mean 
two new customers a month or the profits of 25 of my customers to pay 
for that.  Now if i say had 200 customers that would be 1/8 of my 
profits

:)
I have been trying to get my partner to agree to the dues since the 
inception of of WISPA.  Even if it means going in the red.  I can 
appreciate the reasoning though.


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.
http://www.broadband-mn.com



D. Ryan Spott wrote:
Join WISPA, 

$25 bucks a month. The URL is at the bottom of this email. 


You get great advice and answers to this email on the members list! :)

ryan

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Anthony Will
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 1:09 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Reducing per customer costs

Earlier I brook out our cost per customer.  Our Billing, Admin, and 
support costs are using over half of our cash flow.  Is this comparable 
for you and how do or plan to reduce those costs?


  




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


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] Reducing per customer costs

[Anthony Will]

Earlier I brook out our cost per customer.  Our Billing, Admin, and 
support costs are using over half of our cash flow.  Is this comparable 
for you and how do or plan to reduce those costs?


--
Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.
http://www.broadband-mn.com




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


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] max & average # subs to a 900 AP?

[Anthony Will]

60-70 on a 3mb aggregate.  120 or so on 7mb.  This is with a majority of 
1mb plans.  So about a 20 to 1 ratio.  That seems to be a sweet spot for 
our system. 


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.
http://www.broadband-mn.com



Patrick Leary wrote:

I'd appreciate any feedback you folks are willing to provide. I suspect
the numbers are substantially lower than 5 GHz APs due to the smaller
system capacity, but I'd rather not assume.

Regards,

 
Patrick Leary

AVP, Market Development
Alvarion, Inc.





 This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp 
Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(84). 






 
 


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







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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org


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

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

  




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


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] What basic ROI do you target?

[Anthony Will]

On another list I answered 6 - 9 months with $100 install fee and we 
retain ownership.  In reality we lease to own all equipment on 36 month 
leases.  On average $12 per month per radio goes to this lease.  This is 
for our $40 or $200 plan it does not mater.  92% of our plans are sold 
at the $49.95 per month rate.  So for ruff numbers per month, here it is 
per customer averaged over a 12 month cycle.  (Hope this helps someone 
looking to get into the business)(P.S. I hope I don't scare you off)


  Hard numbers = will not change with volume
Installation cost $75 (contractor) + $10 in misu. hardware = $15 to the 
good (we charge $100 installation)

Customer Radio = $12
Sales / marketing = $3.50
  Soft numbers = will go down with volume
Tower rental on average per customer = $2
Billing and administrative costs = $7
Bandwidth = $7.50
Support = $7
Infrastructure = $4
Misu. (vehicle, office rent, utilities, etc.) = $5.50

Total per month = $48.95
Total profit in first year per customer = $12 + $15 (made at install) = $27

These numbers are supporting a growth rate of about 18 customers per 
month. 
..Why am I doing this again?? 
So can anyone guess how many customers we have right now?  (hint more 
then 100 less then 1000)


So from these numbers we are profitable on day one ... granted it is 
only $16 but better then a stick in the eye. 


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.
http://www.broadband-mn.com



Travis Johnson wrote:

Hi,

We lease all of our CPE, therefore our ROI is 0 months. The 
installation fee ($99) covers the truck roll for the installation, so 
starting from day one I am making profit on that customer. We have 
been doing it this way for over 4 years now.


Travis
Microserv

Patrick Leary wrote:

I am curious about how divergent the responses may be. In your answer,
include just the cost of the truck roll and CPE measured against any
set-up and service initiation fees charged with the monthly subscription
fee.

Years ago, it was not uncommon for WISPs to say they need a 24-month
basic return per subscriber. These days I suspect most will say under 9
months.
Patrick Leary
AVP, Market Development
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
[EMAIL PROTECTED]




 
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by 
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & 
computer viruses(84). 
 







 
 
 


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







 


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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org


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

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


  



 


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



WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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





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


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

[Anthony Will]

I completely disagree that the government "should" have anything to do 
with our industry and that it is a "given" except in matters of 
anti-trust, managing a scarce "public" resource (radio spectrum) or 
safety.  Anything else hands off.  And that also applies to any other 
industry. 
I could understand regulating us if VOIP replaces the normal PSTN 
network for safety reasons ak. E911.  This is never going to happen 
though due to cell phones.  I also can understand the need for CALEA and 
agree with it, again for the safety of the public.  Other then that I 
can't see any other reason why we should have any regulations on our 
industry or any other industry.


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.
http://www.broadband-mn.com



Clint Ricker wrote:

The Comcast deal has very little to do with traffic prioritization except
for the regulatory liability of ineptness.  The Comcast deal, using Sandvine
gear, actually _actively_ disrupts the service by inserting spoofed packets
into the TCP stream, which is a far cry from the "best effort" philosophy
that that usually applies to residential connections is "best effort".

Traffic prioritization is MUCH different than blocking, rate limiting, or,
in the comcast case, actively disrupting service.

The issue we have before us, is are we the operators of our network, or
  

is the government/consumer/application?




So, where do you stand on using FCC-certified gear?  :)  (_please_, don't
answer--I'm not wanting to get that started up again) To some extent, the
government _does_ have a right to have some say in how utilities operate.
You are not a retail shop, you are not an eatery, you are not running a car
wash.  You are, in at least some sense, a telecommunications utility--and,
just like there are regulations that ensure certain guidelines in being able
to place telephone calls, watch television, and so forth, there are, will,
and should be certain guidelines regulating you as a telecommunications
utility.  I philosophically don't buy the "it's my network, and I can do
whatever the hell I want with it" idea.   What level and what type of
regulations is something to be discussed, but that they do, will, and should
exist on some level is a given.










WISPA Wants You! Join today!
  

http://signup.wispa.org/



WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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






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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org


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

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

  




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


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

[Anthony Will]

The application is very important.  If the technology that we had at our 
disposal would not be hampered by any application then I could care 
less.  Your right the more bits and applications for our customers use 
the better for us.  Unfortunately in most markets the only thing we can 
provide our customers is superior customer service.  At this time we are 
behind on every other metric, be it bandwidth, latency, etc.  We also 
have a very limited amount of resources to deploy in.  Compared to cable 
that has literally 2ghz plus of spectrum to use we can't even hope to 
compete on a bang for buck approach. So with that in mind I have to 
agree that Comcast's is the only way we can survive for last mile 
delivery.  I also agree as for a carrier / wholesale the pipe should be 
as dumb as possible and just pass bits as fast as it can.  My main 
concern is that as a private business owner I am the only one qualified 
to say how my network and business should operate.  No government agency 
or bureaucrat could possibly understand my business better then myself.  
Comcast is no different.  Let the free market figure out how to make 
this work.


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.
http://www.broadband-mn.com



David E. Smith wrote:

Clint Ricker wrote:

No one is saying that you have to sell $40 10Mb/s pipes at to 
customers for

them to use full tilt 24x7.  Restrict on bandwidth, if you choose.  Sell
metered.  Put caps on.  Why restrict based on "content type"?


Because some content types make customers call and complain, and some 
don't.


My network generally rate-limits or drops most "peer-to-peer" traffic, 
because our last-mile wireless gear often throws a fit when confronted 
with really aggressive P2P software. One customer running Limewire, 
using its default settings, can bring down a whole access point, 
annoying twenty or more other customers.


Frankly, I don't care what you're downloading, only how you're 
downloading it. I don't care if it's naughty videos or Linux ISOs, 
legal or not-so-much; if it degrades other customers' service, it'll 
get shut off. We're very up-front about this stipulation. When the 
"service problems" bad cop is combined with the "you didn't know it's 
probably illegal to download most of that stuff" good cop, most 
customers are very understanding. A few have been asked to find other 
service providers, and I don't weep overly for them.



You should not care--it doesn't cost you
any more or less, regardless as to what they choose to use their 6GB 
a month

for.


The P2P traffic costs me reputation and goodwill with my customers, so 
I would argue it's far more expensive than many other types of traffic.


David Smith
MVN.net



 


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



WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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





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


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

[Anthony Will]

k it's wrong to blatantly block it unless your in an
extreme rural area and bandwidth is an extreme problem. Ie some 
providers in
for example Alaska are limited to satellite feeds that are not very 
fast and
costs an incredible amount or where the highest feed they can get is 
a T1 or
two at outrageous price and the infrastructure behind the T1 can not 
handle

large amount of traffic.



Below is a link to the Petition filed by Vuze, Inc to FCC.


<http://www.vistaprint.com/vp/gateway.aspx?S=5176697856>

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf
<http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_docume 


nt=6519811711> &id_document=6519811711



/ Eje

WISP-Router, Inc.



 


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



WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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





 


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



WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



--
Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.
http://broadband-mn.com




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


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] EarthLink Says No More Money for Existing Muni Networks

[Anthony Will]

Your right but I would be willing to bet almost every wisp on here 
wouldn't turn down the opportunity to leverage the Earthlink brand and 
could likely offload some servers such as email and web hosting, offer 
the package virus scanner / firewall junk software etc. There are many 
ways a partnership like this could work to everyones benefit.  I would 
get in bed with them just for the opportunity to get at there customer 
database. 


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.
www.broadband-mn.com

Travis Johnson wrote:
Can you imagine trying to partner with 500 WISP's around the country? 
What a nightmare. Different equipment, different troubleshooting, 
different everything. It would never work.


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:

Like we didn't see it comming :-)

The key statement I saw was... "no more investment, unless a change 
in model", or something like that.
What Earthlinks should be doing is staying focused on help desk 
support, content, and value add, partnering with existing providers 
that have models that work. Meaning partner with successful WISPs, 
not try and become one.



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


- Original Message - From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 6:01 PM
Subject: [WISPA] EarthLink Says No More Money for Existing Muni Networks




http://wifinetnews.com/archives/008052.html


--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
FCC License # PG-12-25133
Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs"
True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com






 


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



WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 
269.15.5/1085 - Release Date: 10/22/2007 10:35 AM







 


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



WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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





 


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



WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



--
Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.
http://broadband-mn.com




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


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] External battery on UPS

[Anthony Will]

I would be interested in learning more about it. 


Anthony
Broadband Corp.

Russ Kreigh wrote:

Yeah, it's completely possible, and will work well, at least once, until
the batteries are gone and need to be recharged.

The issue is the duty-cycle of the charger, your going from a 14ah to 100ah
charge load, the charger has to run 7-times as long to fully charge the
batteries, this may work fine with some higher end UPS, and some it might
burn up the charger.

Another thing to make note of, is that most UPS systems run an internal 24V
system, and not a 12V system, so be SURE which one you're dealing with
before you start any modifications.

We're in process of developing our own remote-site power solution.
Everything we've found is either too big physically, requiring expensive
outdoor enclosures, or doesn't have the run-time we desire, or is too
expensive.

I think we've got the basic design down, we're adding things like a local
power input option, so that in a long extended outage we can drop the
generator off to charge the batteries and run the system, and when the
utility power is restored, it will switch back automatically.

We're also looking into a direct 12v input from a vehicle cigarette lighter
output, or additional external batteries.

Would anyone have any interest in this when we get it complete?

Thanks,

Russ Kreigh
Network Engineer
OnlyInternet.Net
Supernova Technologies



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of paul hendry
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 12:09 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; wireless@wispa.org
Subject: RE: [WISPA] External battery on UPS

Scott,

Surely it should be possible to replace 2 12v 7ah batteries run in 
parallel (not series) with 1 12v 100ah battery as the voltage isn't 
changing? With regards runtime I can just increase the external battery 
count.


Mac, don't worry I have no intention of putting my tongue on these 
things to see if they charged ;)


Cheers,

P.

-Original Message-
From: Scott Reed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 02 March 2007 12:22

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] External battery on UPS

The charger is designed for the size and number of batteries in the 
original configuration.  Changing the quantity and/or type of battery 
risks damaging either the charger or the batteries.


Also, runtime is determined by the batteries, so changing them changes 
the runtime.


paul hendry wrote:
  
Is anyone using external batteries on the larger APC UPS's? I've got 

an 
  
old Smart-UPS 3000 RM that has 8 x 12v batteries in it. The thing is 
they are wired in a bit of a strange config. It looks to me like they 
are split into 4 sets of 2 batteries running in series then 2 of those 



  
sets are cabled to the same connector inside the UPS and so there are 

2 
  

connectors with 4 batteries hanging of each.

Is there any reason I can't run 2 x 2 (in series) 12v 100ah batteries 
instead of the original 8? I don't seem to be able to and don't really 



  

want to get another 4 batteries just to discover I can do it with 4.

Cheers,

P.

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

On 
  

Behalf Of Mark Nash - Lists
Sent: 16 November 2006 16:45
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] External battery on UPS

I replaced the two internal batteries last night with two external, 


$100
  
batteries, and put a load on the UPS that matched the highest load I 
have
out in the field (80w).  It took 2 Tranzeo APs, an Xpeed SDSL modem, 

and 
  

a
19" TV on the QVC to load it up properly.  Now instead of 1 hour I get 



  

13
hours.  Bigger, better batteries should net me more time than this.  

My 
  

goal
is bang for buck at this stage in my business...more run time for a 
sensible

price.

One cool thing about this setup is that I can rig it up to be able to 
simply
take new batteries out to a site when they are getting low, instead of 



  

the
generator.  I can keep some spare batteries charged up and ready to 


go.
  
It's a whole lot cheaper and easier than purchasing multiple QUALITY 
1000w
generators and putting large custom tanks on them.  That is if your 

UPS 
  

is
not on the top of a water tower or something. ;)

Mark Nash
Network Engineer
UnwiredOnline.Net
350 Holly Street
Junction City, OR 97448
http://www.uwol.net
541-998-
541-998-5599 fax

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

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] External battery on UPS


  


I'm pasting Gino's link to the right thread.
Then I can search me email in a year and find the correct thread

Connectors:

http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&Partnumber=263-110

Batteries:

http://www.donrowe.com/batteries/8a31dt.html



Brian Rohrbacher wrote:


  

Can we get some links to these batteries that work well?
Gin

Re: [WISPA] Form 445

[Anthony Will]

My understanding is that only "broadband providers" are responsible to 
be compliant.  In order to be a "broadband provider" you have to offer 
symmetrical 200kb+ service.


Anthony
Broadband Corp.

Jason wrote:
1.  Here's a question: for those who don't have symmetric rates 
to/from the internet (I have 1meg down and , supposedly 128k up, but 
often it's something like 24 up, satellite you know...) streaming just 
will not work.  Can we store and forward?  Or in general, are they 
taking into account the technology being used and its capabilities?


2.  Anyone know anything about these (price etc):
   
http://www.netoptics.com/products/product_family.asp?cid=1&Section=products&menuitem=1&filter=3 



they make it sound as though they are most of the solution:
   http://www.netoptics.com/pdf/CALEA_Brief.pdf

Jason

George Rogato wrote:

Well ask a question and we'll see.
Guess if I'm supposed to be the messenger, it's me.

If someone wants me to go and ask ridiculous politically radical 
questions, then forget about it. They can just dial the number and 
ask themselves.


But a non political real question is no problem.

George


JohnnyO wrote:

George - who decides what is "reasonable" or not ? Is this a personal
decision ?

Sorry to stick a thorn in here, but, I think Mark's questions are valid
and should be asked on behalf of WISPA.

JohnnyO

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of George Rogato
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 11:44 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Form 445



wispa wrote:


You actually think that the "big guys" will actually let that happen? 



Yeah, I can see it now, our upstreams turning CALEA compliance into 
a profit center.


Anyways if you want to bring your own tape recorder  up to the feds 
and ask them some questions, go for it.


But the offer still stands.

Any reasonable question regarding the implementation of CALEA 
compliance


I will be glad to ask.

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] MT hotspot

[Anthony Will]

I could be way off base here.  I dont run a hotspot with MT at this time 
but I have played with it.  You might want to try 
http://forums.mikrotik.com/ for help.
If i remember correctly when you create a hotspot server it creates a 
DHCP server for this "virtual interface" and thus it is a independent 
DHCP server for that hotspot.  Then you could have the MT handle the IP 
leases.   Also I believe that if you use MAC authentication for the 
hotspot what you are trying would work.


Anthony

Travis Johnson wrote:

Hi,

I serve hundreds of users off this MT router... I can't turn on DHCP 
for a single location for a free hotspot. :(


Travis


Eric Muehleisen wrote:
What if you have the the MT do the DHCP to the end user instead of 
the Linksys? Turn off NAT or do DHCP passthrough or something like 
that? This way you'll have better accountability of your active 
hotspot users.


-Eric

Travis Johnson wrote:

Hi,

We have several free hotspots that we use Linksys firewall/access 
points. The Linksys also serves the DHCP address and lease time, etc.


Is there a way with a Mikrotik to have a simple splash screen appear 
with each new MAC address that comes from the same IP address? Each 
real IP on the Linksys has a default gateway of a MT router.


Travis
Microserv



--
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: Small office VoIP phone systems

[Anthony Will]

Allworx 6x can do that.  You will need to get the software upgrade for 
sip gateway for the off site phones.  This is a full featured PBX for a 
decent price.  I believe it can handle 6 FXO's and has two FXS ports for 
fax and such.


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.

Ryan Spott wrote:

Sorry to be off topic here folks, but I trust all but one of you. :)

I am looking for a small office VoIP phone system. It needs to support 
at least 4 Analog (outside) phone lines and at least 16 or so SIP 
based phones. Most of the Phones will be on a LAN in the building with 
about 4 phones off-site.


I was looking at the LInksys SPA9000 coupled with the SPA400 to do 
this but I am always leery of Linksys stuff.


Can any of you lead me in the right direction? Off list is fine and I 
can put together some synopsis when I get everyones info.


thanks!

ryan

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] WDS PtMP

[Anthony Will]

Ok I didn't realize that you where utilizing the WDS station mode.  So 
you basically have a normal AP/station setup but it is just bridged.  
Are you using N-stream?  The WDS-station mode really was designed so 
that N-stream could be used on a WDS / Bridge network.  WDS - station is 
a proprietary mode developed by MT if my understanding is correct.   If 
so the likely the issue will be resolved with the polling feature 
available with N-stream.  The reason I state this is because from the 
information provided the issue has became a problem as more load has 
been applied to the solution.  The solution is more then capable of 
handling the throughput so this would indicate an interference source.  
As 802.11 is the solution you are seeing more retransmissions as the 
wait-before-talk mechanism is causing high latency issues.  Assuming the 
interference is self generated and antenna choices are limited the 
Polling feature in N-stream likely is your best bet for fixing this. 

I currently use N-stream over WDS for one of my main back hauls to a new 
bandwidth source and it has performed flawlessly for 6 months.  This is 
using 2.9.28 software.  It has been upgraded since installation and I am 
not sure what version of the software we started with.


Anthony Will

Tom DeReggi wrote:
To be clear, Mikrotik us being used, and the 4 remote building are in 
wds station mode and only configured to talk to the 1 central master 
WDS AP, the four client WDS radios are not configured to talk to each 
other.  So all the CPE radios only have one hop to the APconnected to 
the Internet backhaul.


My theory for design was...
I had a 10 mbps backhaul. The WDS PtMP would have 16mbps (54 mbps 
modulation), to help with waste from re-transmissions. All clients are 
bandwidth managed (priority weighted method) centrally on other end of 
backhaul, to also assist with fair transmission time. Also radios use 
CDMA/CA, with the CA also assisting.  The question is, is this enough 
to let it work well with only four buildings.


I'm starting to think that it might not be. But the problem shouldn't 
be that they hear each other. we want them to hear each other, so they 
don't transmit at the same time. Thats what 802.11 needs. Hidden node 
happens because CPEs don't hear each other, and don;t know someone 
else is transmitting, from my understanding.


Part of my question is, Does WDS work differently when in Mikrotik 
Station WDS mode than a normal WDS AP?


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


- Original Message - From: "Anthony Will" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WDS PtMP


It would seem to me that as your load increased your WDS/APs are 
transmitting over each other as clients are trying to transmit to the 
central AP. client -->WDS/AP transmitting carrier beacons or other 
data to client and passing onto to -->WDS/AP<--WDS/AP<--Client 
(transmitting to local AP)
In this scenario you have the two clients talking and one AP all 
trying to talk at the same time and thus raising your noise floor 
because they are all on the same channel.
There is not a feature in standard WDS to coordinate who can talk and 
who can not talk other then the standard CDMA layer of the 802.11 
protocol. This will create issues as the more load you have on this 
setup the more self interference and retransmissions you will incur.  
The big thing the mesh brings to the table is the ability to help 
coordinate all of this traffic so that you can utilize the spectrum 
more efficiently.  At least that is my opinion as soon as someone 
actually does it.  You likely are going to have to switch to a 
station /AP solution for this setup because everything is to close 
and can hear each other.  This will destroy your bridge setup unless 
you change to a propitiatory system such as Trango, Canopy, etc.  One 
other thing to note is that this is all half duplex so you might have 
two many hops and thus running out of bandwidth.


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.

Tom DeReggi wrote:

Background
In standard WIFI, a principle exists called hidden note, where two 
CPEs transmit at the same time and colide because they do not hear 
each other. There are three ways to get around that, using WIFI 
between Client and AP. 1) Polling (Karlnet, Nstream, Proprietary), 
2) Use Omnis, so radios can hear each other if in close proximity, 
3) RTS/CTS which effectively solves the problem at a significant 
performance degregation.  A well know problem with well known 
solutions.

 Issue.
How does this play our with WDS? AP to AP communication. Sure in PtP 
its a non-issue, because there are only two radios involved to 
complete the link. But WDS allows PtMP operation.
How does WDS commuication work? Does the Hidden Node problem exist 
with PtMP WDS? And if so, is there a way to addr

Re: [WISPA] WDS PtMP

[Anthony Will]

On thing I forgot to mention is that every single packet transmitted is 
going to be retransmitted on all the WDS/AP connected together on the 
wireless side.  With sustained traffic that would mean that all of them 
are transmitting and receiving the 2 megs mentioned.  And we can assume 
that these units are not exactly all the same distance or under the same 
exact load so there will be very tiny differences when each unit will be 
retransmitting that 2 meg of traffic.


I am not real happy with the way I explained this let me know if it 
makes any sense  :)


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.

Anthony Will wrote:
It would seem to me that as your load increased your WDS/APs are 
transmitting over each other as clients are trying to transmit to the 
central AP. 

   client -->WDS/AP transmitting 
carrier beacons or other data to client and passing onto to 
-->WDS/AP<--WDS/AP<--Client (transmitting to local AP)
In this scenario you have the two clients talking and one AP all 
trying to talk at the same time and thus raising your noise floor 
because they are all on the same channel.
There is not a feature in standard WDS to coordinate who can talk and 
who can not talk other then the standard CDMA layer of the 802.11 
protocol.  This will create issues as the more load you have on this 
setup the more self interference and retransmissions you will incur.  
The big thing the mesh brings to the table is the ability to help 
coordinate all of this traffic so that you can utilize the spectrum 
more efficiently.  At least that is my opinion as soon as someone 
actually does it.  You likely are going to have to switch to a station 
/AP solution for this setup because everything is to close and can 
hear each other.  This will destroy your bridge setup unless you 
change to a propitiatory system such as Trango, Canopy, etc.  One 
other thing to note is that this is all half duplex so you might have 
two many hops and thus running out of bandwidth.


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.

Tom DeReggi wrote:

Background
In standard WIFI, a principle exists called hidden note, where two 
CPEs transmit at the same time and colide because they do not hear 
each other. There are three ways to get around that, using WIFI 
between Client and AP. 1) Polling (Karlnet, Nstream, Proprietary), 2) 
Use Omnis, so radios can hear each other if in close proximity, 3) 
RTS/CTS which effectively solves the problem at a significant 
performance degregation.  A well know problem with well known solutions.
 
Issue.
How does this play our with WDS? AP to AP communication. Sure in PtP 
its a non-issue, because there are only two radios involved to 
complete the link. But WDS allows PtMP operation.
How does WDS commuication work? Does the Hidden Node problem exist 
with PtMP WDS? And if so, is there a way to address it?  If so, will 
it help to make the CPE's Omnis, so they hear each other?
 
My confusion is how WDS/WDS works compared to Station/AP modes.
 
Example application:

Using 802.11a gear.
5 seperate MTU buildings, spread out within 300 yards of each other.
1 is a Master AP Site, with an Omni, and a second backhaul radio to 
the Internet.
4 of the 5 have a direction CPE style antenna pointing to the Master 
Antenna.
WDS is used to allow the radios to operate as true transparent 
bridges, and to pass per client (5-10 clients per MTU) large packet 
VLAN traffic.
 
(Note: There is a reason we did not select Nstreme w/ Polling. It may 
have been an incompatibilty with WDS or inabilty to do transparent 
bridging with large packets, which standard 802.11 station mode does 
not support under protocol. May have been early version of Firmware, 
not sure if still an issue)
 
Why I thought it might be an issue:
 
Surveys show low noise. However, as more clients have been taken on 
(2 mbps average sustained throughput all combined), the Link quality 
started to degregate as if the noise floor was rising.
As a tempoirary measure, we switched to 5.2Ghz (indoor only FREQ, 
which appeared not to have any detectable noise in standard 802.11 
based survey tools, and was chosen because non-detectable carrier 
grade gear would not use those channels).  Its hard to believe that 
the noise floor would be that high using that freq.  So I'm wondering 
if the noise that I'm hearing is actually my own CPEs within this 
project?
The symptom was sparatic higher latency, what typically would happen 
if 802.11a had frequent retransmissions (native prorocol ARQ).  
I can look at stats to see if there are re-transmissions, but that 
data is pointless, as what I want to know is, is the retransmisison 
because my own noise or someone elses.  Its hard to tell with WiFi, 
as WiFi doesn't transmit when its not in use.  So testing in the 
middle of the night, when clients and users in town are off, may not 
be meaningful.  Its a

Re: [WISPA] WDS PtMP

[Anthony Will]

It would seem to me that as your load increased your WDS/APs are 
transmitting over each other as clients are trying to transmit to the 
central AP. 

   
client -->WDS/AP transmitting carrier beacons or other data to client 
and passing onto to -->WDS/AP<--WDS/AP<--Client (transmitting to local AP) 

In this scenario you have the two clients talking and one AP all trying 
to talk at the same time and thus raising your noise floor because they 
are all on the same channel. 

There is not a feature in standard WDS to coordinate who can talk and 
who can not talk other then the standard CDMA layer of the 802.11 
protocol.  This will create issues as the more load you have on this 
setup the more self interference and retransmissions you will incur.  
The big thing the mesh brings to the table is the ability to help 
coordinate all of this traffic so that you can utilize the spectrum more 
efficiently.  At least that is my opinion as soon as someone actually 
does it.  You likely are going to have to switch to a station /AP 
solution for this setup because everything is to close and can hear each 
other.  This will destroy your bridge setup unless you change to a 
propitiatory system such as Trango, Canopy, etc.  One other thing to 
note is that this is all half duplex so you might have two many hops and 
thus running out of bandwidth.


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.

Tom DeReggi wrote:

Background
In standard WIFI, a principle exists called hidden note, where two 
CPEs transmit at the same time and colide because they do not hear 
each other. There are three ways to get around that, using WIFI 
between Client and AP. 1) Polling (Karlnet, Nstream, Proprietary), 2) 
Use Omnis, so radios can hear each other if in close proximity, 3) 
RTS/CTS which effectively solves the problem at a significant 
performance degregation.  A well know problem with well known solutions.
 
Issue.
How does this play our with WDS? AP to AP communication. Sure in PtP 
its a non-issue, because there are only two radios involved to 
complete the link. But WDS allows PtMP operation.
How does WDS commuication work? Does the Hidden Node problem exist 
with PtMP WDS? And if so, is there a way to address it?  If so, will 
it help to make the CPE's Omnis, so they hear each other?
 
My confusion is how WDS/WDS works compared to Station/AP modes.
 
Example application:

Using 802.11a gear.
5 seperate MTU buildings, spread out within 300 yards of each other.
1 is a Master AP Site, with an Omni, and a second backhaul radio to 
the Internet.
4 of the 5 have a direction CPE style antenna pointing to the Master 
Antenna.
WDS is used to allow the radios to operate as true transparent 
bridges, and to pass per client (5-10 clients per MTU) large packet 
VLAN traffic.
 
(Note: There is a reason we did not select Nstreme w/ Polling. It may 
have been an incompatibilty with WDS or inabilty to do transparent 
bridging with large packets, which standard 802.11 station mode does 
not support under protocol. May have been early version of Firmware, 
not sure if still an issue)
 
Why I thought it might be an issue:
 
Surveys show low noise. However, as more clients have been taken on (2 
mbps average sustained throughput all combined), the Link quality 
started to degregate as if the noise floor was rising.
As a tempoirary measure, we switched to 5.2Ghz (indoor only FREQ, 
which appeared not to have any detectable noise in standard 802.11 
based survey tools, and was chosen because non-detectable carrier 
grade gear would not use those channels).  Its hard to believe that 
the noise floor would be that high using that freq.  So I'm wondering 
if the noise that I'm hearing is actually my own CPEs within this project?
The symptom was sparatic higher latency, what typically would happen 
if 802.11a had frequent retransmissions (native prorocol ARQ). 
 
I can look at stats to see if there are re-transmissions, but that 
data is pointless, as what I want to know is, is the retransmisison 
because my own noise or someone elses.  Its hard to tell with WiFi, as 
WiFi doesn't transmit when its not in use.  So testing in the middle 
of the night, when clients and users in town are off, may not be 
meaningful.  Its also possible, that I just have a failing radio card 
or two, and a totally different cause.
 
Tom DeReggi

RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
 

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon

[Anthony Will]

part-15.org but I seem to remember that they removed access to the 
archives unless you are a member.  bullit might have changed that since.


Anthony

Travis Johnson wrote:

Is there a Canopy mailing list that is active?

Travis
Microserv


Mike Bushard, Jr wrote:
Here is a crude picture of one of our areas. 


Aside from the one site everything works great. 18 Canopy 900 Sectors in a 6
mile radius. Plus 2 Vertical that are not in the image. Need less to say
that town is pretty well smoked.

Mike Bushard, Jr
Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Anthony Will
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 1:12 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon

Well I have had 2.4ghz radio's link up at -89db (not very well mind you 
but...) so I don't know what to tell you other then Moto has 
traditionally understated there spec sheets.  The GPS is what sets the 
timing for the AP's.  The AP's coordinate the timing slots for all SM's 
registered to them.  So how it works is that all AP's on channel 1 
across the world all transmit at the same time, and all SM's synced to a 
AP on channel 1 with GPS timing from the AP listen at the same time.  
Distance is not relevant unless you are utilizing the feature set of the 
SM to retransmit a GPS sync pulse that it receives from and AP to a BH 
or AP.  The lag that is introduced by having to transmit that pulse info 
across the wireless link to the SM retransmitting is the only time that 
distance can come into play.  The application this is used for is for a 
cheap repeater system so that you dont have to have a GPS synchronizing 
device at every tower.

 />SM
GPS -->AP#1 /
\
  \>SM (retransmitting GPS sync pulse) -->AP#2 
-->SM (retransmitting GPS sync pulse) -->AP#3 (this AP will be out of 
sync with AP#1)


Basically the timing is measured in nano seconds so it takes to long for 
RF to transmit the data across the wireless links to continue to 
propagate the timing signal.  But if you put a GPS sync generating 
device at AP#3 it would be in perfect time with AP#1 and close enough 
timing with AP#2 that they all would get along.


One thing to keep in mind is if you are the only Canopy shop in the area 
you can have your AP's generate the sync pulse and avoid the cost of the 
GPS synchronizing items.  Also again as for the distance statement.  6 
AP's in a cluster sharing 3 channels have to be synced.  believe me the 
messy antenna on the Canopy units dont have a good enough F/B ratio to 
not hear another AP 6" away from it.  The two AP's that are back to back 
share the same channel so that when they transmit the SM's that are 
listening are as far away from each other as possible and thus reduce 
any chance of talking over each other.  The largest benefit that GPS 
sync allows is to add additional capacity to area's by allowing for more 
towers to be in a smaller area without self interference.  If long range 
rural deployments are the plan then GPS sync will only benefit you if 
you have competitors utilizing the same equipment and configuration in 
the area.  So a Moto advantage cluster has about 84mb total (Classic 
Canopy would be 42mb) FTP bandwidth available to it.  If more is needed 
you can place the towers with in a few miles and divide a cell into two 
micro cells each with a possible 84mb of total bandwidth for a total of 
168mb serviced to a given area. 
One last note, GPS timing will not allow for two separate clusters of 
the same type ( two 2.4ghz clusters) to be on the same tower.  I can't 
write out whats in my head on this getting a little late in the 
night but if you wanted to I could talk to you over the phone and 
explain it.  Send me an email to anthonyw (at) broadband-mn.com and Ill 
give you my cell phone number or give you a call.


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.

Travis Johnson wrote:
  

Hi,

First, the spec sheet on Motorola's website says -86 RSSI.

What happens when you have more than 3 towers outside of the 8 mile 
range of GPS sync? The 2.4ghz signal will definately travel that far, 
causing self-interference, correct?


Travis
Microserv

Anthony Will wrote:



Answers in-line

Travis Johnson wrote:

  

Hi,

I'd like to go back to the specs on different radios just so I can 
compare for myself...


Trango 2.4ghz:
5Mbps auto ratio
8 non-overlapping channels
10mhz spectrum per channel
-90 Receive level
15 mile range (without a grid)
External connector and dual-pol integrated antenna
$879 AP (WISP price)
$479 SU (WISP price)

Canopy 2.4ghz (regular):
7Mbps fixed ratio
3 non-overlapping channels
20mhz spectrum per channel
-86 Receive level


2.4 canopy has a -89 receive level

  

5 mile range (without a dish)
$902 AP (reseller price online)
$490 

Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon

[Anthony Will]

Well I have had 2.4ghz radio's link up at -89db (not very well mind you 
but...) so I don't know what to tell you other then Moto has 
traditionally understated there spec sheets.  The GPS is what sets the 
timing for the AP's.  The AP's coordinate the timing slots for all SM's 
registered to them.  So how it works is that all AP's on channel 1 
across the world all transmit at the same time, and all SM's synced to a 
AP on channel 1 with GPS timing from the AP listen at the same time.  
Distance is not relevant unless you are utilizing the feature set of the 
SM to retransmit a GPS sync pulse that it receives from and AP to a BH 
or AP.  The lag that is introduced by having to transmit that pulse info 
across the wireless link to the SM retransmitting is the only time that 
distance can come into play.  The application this is used for is for a 
cheap repeater system so that you dont have to have a GPS synchronizing 
device at every tower.

/>SM
GPS -->AP#1 /
   \
 \>SM (retransmitting GPS sync pulse) -->AP#2 
-->SM (retransmitting GPS sync pulse) -->AP#3 (this AP will be out of 
sync with AP#1)


Basically the timing is measured in nano seconds so it takes to long for 
RF to transmit the data across the wireless links to continue to 
propagate the timing signal.  But if you put a GPS sync generating 
device at AP#3 it would be in perfect time with AP#1 and close enough 
timing with AP#2 that they all would get along.


One thing to keep in mind is if you are the only Canopy shop in the area 
you can have your AP's generate the sync pulse and avoid the cost of the 
GPS synchronizing items.  Also again as for the distance statement.  6 
AP's in a cluster sharing 3 channels have to be synced.  believe me the 
messy antenna on the Canopy units dont have a good enough F/B ratio to 
not hear another AP 6" away from it.  The two AP's that are back to back 
share the same channel so that when they transmit the SM's that are 
listening are as far away from each other as possible and thus reduce 
any chance of talking over each other.  The largest benefit that GPS 
sync allows is to add additional capacity to area's by allowing for more 
towers to be in a smaller area without self interference.  If long range 
rural deployments are the plan then GPS sync will only benefit you if 
you have competitors utilizing the same equipment and configuration in 
the area.  So a Moto advantage cluster has about 84mb total (Classic 
Canopy would be 42mb) FTP bandwidth available to it.  If more is needed 
you can place the towers with in a few miles and divide a cell into two 
micro cells each with a possible 84mb of total bandwidth for a total of 
168mb serviced to a given area. 
One last note, GPS timing will not allow for two separate clusters of 
the same type ( two 2.4ghz clusters) to be on the same tower.  I can't 
write out whats in my head on this getting a little late in the 
night but if you wanted to I could talk to you over the phone and 
explain it.  Send me an email to anthonyw (at) broadband-mn.com and Ill 
give you my cell phone number or give you a call.


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.

Travis Johnson wrote:

Hi,

First, the spec sheet on Motorola's website says -86 RSSI.

What happens when you have more than 3 towers outside of the 8 mile 
range of GPS sync? The 2.4ghz signal will definately travel that far, 
causing self-interference, correct?


Travis
Microserv

Anthony Will wrote:


Answers in-line

Travis Johnson wrote:


Hi,

I'd like to go back to the specs on different radios just so I can 
compare for myself...


Trango 2.4ghz:
5Mbps auto ratio
8 non-overlapping channels
10mhz spectrum per channel
-90 Receive level
15 mile range (without a grid)
External connector and dual-pol integrated antenna
$879 AP (WISP price)
$479 SU (WISP price)

Canopy 2.4ghz (regular):
7Mbps fixed ratio
3 non-overlapping channels
20mhz spectrum per channel
-86 Receive level


2.4 canopy has a -89 receive level


5 mile range (without a dish)
$902 AP (reseller price online)
$490 SU (reseller price online)


I am guessing your quoting single prices here.  Now that maybe viable 
for this discussion but realistically if a WISP is not financially 
able to purchase in 25 packs they likely are very underfunded.  So 
that the information is available a 25 pack of the "Classic" 2.4 ghz 
Canopy units is $6709 so if you break that down to single price that 
is about $269ea + $50 for reflector for a total of $319ea.  
http://www.doubleradius.com   It is possible to get them cheaper then 
this but you will have to deal with co-op's or ebay.com
Also I would never install a unit with a 60* pattern (Trango or 
Canopy).  Just include the$50 for a reflector or stinger from 
http://www.wirelessbehive.com





Based on the information from Mike, I could not use Ca

Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon

[Anthony Will]

Answers in-line

Travis Johnson wrote:

Hi,

I'd like to go back to the specs on different radios just so I can 
compare for myself...


Trango 2.4ghz:
5Mbps auto ratio
8 non-overlapping channels
10mhz spectrum per channel
-90 Receive level
15 mile range (without a grid)
External connector and dual-pol integrated antenna
$879 AP (WISP price)
$479 SU (WISP price)

Canopy 2.4ghz (regular):
7Mbps fixed ratio
3 non-overlapping channels
20mhz spectrum per channel
-86 Receive level

2.4 canopy has a -89 receive level

5 mile range (without a dish)
$902 AP (reseller price online)
$490 SU (reseller price online)
I am guessing your quoting single prices here.  Now that maybe viable 
for this discussion but realistically if a WISP is not financially able 
to purchase in 25 packs they likely are very underfunded.  So that the 
information is available a 25 pack of the "Classic" 2.4 ghz Canopy units 
is $6709 so if you break that down to single price that is about $269ea 
+ $50 for reflector for a total of $319ea.  
http://www.doubleradius.com   It is possible to get them cheaper then 
this but you will have to deal with co-op's or ebay.com
Also I would never install a unit with a 60* pattern (Trango or 
Canopy).  Just include the$50 for a reflector or stinger from 
http://www.wirelessbehive.com



Based on the information from Mike, I could not use Canopy. In several 
areas, I have 4-5 towers located within 5 miles of each other how 
do I do that with Canopy? With Trango, I use a different channel for 
the sector pointing toward another tower (frequency planning and 
coordination is very important) and everything works great. Is there a 
solution for this with Canopy?
This is where GPS sync comes in.  You can point two different tower 
locations on the same frequency at each other and they will not 
interfere with each other.  This is how it is possible to do a 6 AP 
cluster on one tower with only 3 non overlapping channels.


Also, by using only a 10mhz spectrum per channel, Trango's channel 1 
and channel 8 are actually outside the reach of Canopy and 802.11 (for 
the most part) and thus can almost always be used in a noisy environment.
Remember with Canopy you generally don't have to avoid interference.  
Find the cleanest channel and 90% of the time you will be the few db 
louder then the noise that you need to make a viable link.


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp


Travis
Microserv

Mike Bushard, Jr wrote:

Well, so far as we can tell the only thing that can kill canopy, IS CANOPY.
We have put it up against WaveRider, Alvarion, and 802.11b. They all fell of
the face of the earth. 


We have 16 tower sites deployed, all 900Mhz and 2.4, over 1000 CPE and more
on the way. (I realize there are many people bigger than us.)

We use a mix of MTI Omni's, MTI or Tiltek 120deg Sectors (MTI for Horizontal
and Tiltek for Vertical) and integrated 60deg sectors (I really wish someone
would come out with a descent H-pol as I don't like the integrated antenna)
with 900. Cyclone Omni's or 120deg sectors on 2.4.

Here is what I have found with GPS Sourced Sync vs. Generate Sync:

If you want channel reuse you need GPS sourced sync.
If you have a tower more than 8 miles away, you need to use different
channels no matter what, even with GPS sourced sync you still have speed of
light issues from tower to tower.

Can you Generate sync and deploy multiple AP's in a given area, yes. You
just need to make sure you have Frequency separation. Does this mean I
recommend it, NO.

Also even with every site GPS Synced, you still can only put so many AP's in
a given area be for you need to go to a different polarity. At least we know
there will never be another 900Mhz based ISP in one of our towns.

Also on a side note, I have never found a problem with 2.4, it is 900 that
will give you problems, it just carries so far. If the noise floor was
lower, and Canopy could run at -90 we would have coverage for a long ways.
It seems like we can always pick up a AP at -80.

YMMV.

Mike Bushard, Jr
Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 5:07 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon

Patrick Leary wrote:
  

I'm speaking about multipoint matt, not ptp. The dedicated ptp you are
doing is by far the exception. Canopy is designed, built, and sold to be
primarily a pmp system. I've never met or heard of a Canopy pmp network
of any scale that did not require GPS.

  

I'd be interested in further explanation on this topic. We have some 
Canopy pmp and haven't found the lack of GPS a problem. Granted we don't 
have a large amount of pmp, but I would certainly like to understand any 
future pain before we experience 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] vendor specs

[Anthony Will]

No, it is my understanding that within the contractual terms of the 
agreement they are not allowed to directly solicit or sell my customers 
information.


Anthony Will

Travis Johnson wrote:
Ahhh... there's always a catch... so now Motorola has your customer's 
address and can use that for their own marketing, etc. without you 
ever knowing. They could possibly even sell the list to someone 
(ClearWire) down the road and you would never know.


Travis
Microserv

Anthony Will wrote:

Yes,  Motorola provides a service to any customer that purchases or 
has a canopy product installed for service.  This is a $40 mail in 
rebate that has to have a unique MAC address of the radio installed 
supplied.  The end customer receives this rebate from Motorola.  The 
ISP is prohibited from receiving this money.  My guess on this is 
because they will actually have to pay it for every single radio they 
sell Personally I am a bit frustrated with the program, not of 
the fact that it doesnt work or any thing like that but I would 
prefer they just drop the radio cost by $40 but business is business.


Obviously this can help with the residential end of things for 
advertising free or reduced cost installations or months service with 
"mail in rebate"  We advertise it as one month free service.  I must 
add that the program has had a noticeable effect on our residential 
customer advertising uptake.


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Are you saying that Motorola holds the financing?

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


- Original Message - From: "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 11:18 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs


If you're serving the residential market, and price is the big 
concern, it's
worth noting that Canopy has a $40 / customer "residential rebate 
program"

that's been going on for almost 2 years now

It's also worth noting with Canopy that you need to add ~$10 / unit for
power supplies (they are sold separately)

Regarding pricing


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


CPE pricing (if you're focusing on residential), should be adjusted to

25 pack:
LITE: $129 NET ($149 - 40 + 10) -- (this is currently a promo that ends
December 31)
Normal: $237 NET ($267 - 40 + 10)

100 pack:
Normal: $186 NET ($216 - $40 + 10)

Additionally, there are companies out there with Motorola Approved 0%
Financing programs that will let you spread your larger pack CPE 
consumption
over a longer period of time and get you to the next tier bundle 
pack price,

so you don't tie up important your working capital in inventory / gear

-Charles

---
Operating Manager - CTI
Yes...I'm back

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



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Anthony Will
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 10:17 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs


Your numbers are a bit off on the canopy and when i looked on the 
trango

site it looks more in the range of $400 per unit at 30 pack pricing for
trango's.  I believe your getting that price but at what qualities?

I have a couple hundred in the air and I have Midwest Wireless the 5th
largest WISP in the country playing in my back yard using Alvarions 
junk

BA2 system all over the place.  And I also have a local ILEC,
Stonebridge and the remains of Xtratyme all over the rest of my 
coverage

area.  My PtmP system is all 900mhz and 2.4 ghz using omni's and I dont
have any issues with interference.  The longest customer link I have on
900mhz is 18.5 miles and the longest 2.4 link is 12 miles.  I use 
omni's

so that I dont completely destroy the airwaves for others that are
playing in the same sand box.

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

Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.


Travis Johnson wrote:


Hi,

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

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

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

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

Re: [WISPA] vendor specs

[Anthony Will]

Yes,  Motorola provides a service to any customer that purchases or has 
a canopy product installed for service.  This is a $40 mail in rebate 
that has to have a unique MAC address of the radio installed supplied.  
The end customer receives this rebate from Motorola.  The ISP is 
prohibited from receiving this money.  My guess on this is because they 
will actually have to pay it for every single radio they sell 
Personally I am a bit frustrated with the program, not of the fact that 
it doesnt work or any thing like that but I would prefer they just drop 
the radio cost by $40 but business is business. 



Obviously this can help with the residential end of things for 
advertising free or reduced cost installations or months service with 
"mail in rebate"  We advertise it as one month free service.  I must add 
that the program has had a noticeable effect on our residential customer 
advertising uptake.


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.

Tom DeReggi wrote:

Are you saying that Motorola holds the financing?

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


- Original Message - From: "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 11:18 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs


If you're serving the residential market, and price is the big 
concern, it's
worth noting that Canopy has a $40 / customer "residential rebate 
program"

that's been going on for almost 2 years now

It's also worth noting with Canopy that you need to add ~$10 / unit for
power supplies (they are sold separately)

Regarding pricing


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


CPE pricing (if you're focusing on residential), should be adjusted to

25 pack:
LITE: $129 NET ($149 - 40 + 10) -- (this is currently a promo that ends
December 31)
Normal: $237 NET ($267 - 40 + 10)

100 pack:
Normal: $186 NET ($216 - $40 + 10)

Additionally, there are companies out there with Motorola Approved 0%
Financing programs that will let you spread your larger pack CPE 
consumption
over a longer period of time and get you to the next tier bundle pack 
price,

so you don't tie up important your working capital in inventory / gear

-Charles

---
Operating Manager - CTI
Yes...I'm back

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



-----Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Anthony Will
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 10:17 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs


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

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

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

Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.


Travis Johnson wrote:

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our biggest problem is frequency availability at all 

Re: [WISPA] vendor specs

[Anthony Will]

So does anyone out there use the Alvarion VL and willing to give real 
pricing and feature set?  I am interested in how it stacks up for a BH 
solution.


Anthony Will
Broadband Crop.

Travis Johnson wrote:

Hi,

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


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


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

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

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

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


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


Travis
Microserv

Jon Langeler wrote:

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


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


Jon Langeler
Michwave Tech.

Tom DeReggi wrote:

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


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


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




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] vendor specs

[Anthony Will]

I will agree that Trango prices are lower then Moto Canopy.  The 900mhz 
can come with integrated or connectorized for different prices but they 
are more expensive then what I listed.  I just wanted to show that the 
difference in pricing is not a world of difference that Alvarion.   You 
have to take the feature set and decide if the added features make them 
worth the cost.  I looked at Trango and even visited a network utilizing 
them for BH for their wi-fi network.  Canopy's C/I is what sold me on 
the product.


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.

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


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


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


Travis
Microserv

Anthony Will wrote:

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

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


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.


Travis Johnson wrote:


Hi,

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


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


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

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

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

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


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


Travis
Microserv

Jon Langeler wrote:

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


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


Jon Langeler

Re: [WISPA] vendor specs

[Anthony Will]

I haven't payed for a power supply in about a year.  My distributor 
http://www.doubleradius.com usually tosses them in on specials and 
such.  The prices I listed where from their website.


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.

Charles Wu wrote:

If you're serving the residential market, and price is the big concern, it's
worth noting that Canopy has a $40 / customer "residential rebate program"
that's been going on for almost 2 years now

It's also worth noting with Canopy that you need to add ~$10 / unit for
power supplies (they are sold separately)

Regarding pricing


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



CPE pricing (if you're focusing on residential), should be adjusted to

25 pack: 
LITE: $129 NET ($149 - 40 + 10) -- (this is currently a promo that ends

December 31)
Normal: $237 NET ($267 - 40 + 10)

100 pack:
Normal: $186 NET ($216 - $40 + 10)

Additionally, there are companies out there with Motorola Approved 0%
Financing programs that will let you spread your larger pack CPE consumption
over a longer period of time and get you to the next tier bundle pack price,
so you don't tie up important your working capital in inventory / gear

-Charles

---
Operating Manager - CTI
Yes...I'm back

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




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Anthony Will
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 10:17 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs


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

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


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


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.


Travis Johnson wrote:
  

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


Travis
Microserv

Jon Langeler wrote:



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


ARQ does not affect C/I like FEC does for example. When you say ARQ
is fixing any resiliance problems that may be true. But you'll also 
suffer from increased latency and less throughput during those 
retransmissions. Not good if you wa

Re: [WISPA] vendor specs

[Anthony Will]

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

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


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


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.


Travis Johnson wrote:

Hi,

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


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


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

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

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

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


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


Travis
Microserv

Jon Langeler wrote:

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


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


Jon Langeler
Michwave Tech.

Tom DeReggi wrote:

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


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

Re: [WISPA] Lack of Competition

[Anthony Will]

"I have a $30 plan for 390K and a $40 plan for 2M, more than 80% of my 
customers are on the $30 plan because it meets their needs.  It doesn't 
matter to them that for only $10 more a month they can get 5 times the 
speed."


Actually you did that to your self.  Your 80% is dead on.  You see you 
have a basic plan, a value plan and a advanced plan.  Generally speaking 
you will have 80% of a subscriber base utilize your middle plan.  That 
is just how it works and why so many organizations offer the 3 tiered 
service.  If you wanted your customers on a say $50 plan.  You would 
create the $30 basic plan the $50 value plan and the keep up with the 
jones $75 plan.  Almost 9 times out of 10 they will go for the middle 
package if they have decided to purchase your solution.  This works if 
your selling ice cream or Internet it is a basic rule of marketing.


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.

Sam Tetherow wrote:
Wow, if they really believe that, I wonder how they expect the 
American public to buy a car?  Gee, Ford, Chevy, GMC, KIA, Toyota, 
Subaru ...

Econo, Sedan, Van, SUV, Pickup ...
Sheesh, I guess I'll just walk to work.

Buying groceries oh Lord I'm suprised we haven't starved to death in 
the canned goods aisle trying to decide what type of tomato sauce to 
buy, roasted garlic, low salt, herb and butter ...


I can't speak for Urban areas as I don't live in one or serve one, but 
in BFE where we have 3 ISPs.  I know several people that don't have 
internet, don't have a computer and don't want one (don't know how 
they function, just saying I see it regularly).  I also know several 
people that only have dialup, and know that they pay $20/mo for dialup 
when they can get my bottom end wireless for $25/mo and not tie up 
their phone line.  They are not interested, they use it to send the 
occasional email and that is it.  I've tried marketing to them, I've 
laid it out, but they persist in not spending the extra $5 dollars.  I 
doubt they would spend an extra $2.


I have a $30 plan for 390K and a $40 plan for 2M, more than 80% of my 
customers are on the $30 plan because it meets their needs.  It 
doesn't matter to them that for only $10 more a month they can get 5 
times the speed.



Mark Koskenmaki wrote:

I can't believe that someone would be dumb enough to write this...  The
biggest problem is a lack of FEDERAL POLICY

Oh, please.   Spare us the insane idiocy...



+++
neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East 
Washington

email me at mark at neofast dot net
541-969-8200
Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net


 

The main problem seems to be the free-market telecom frenzy that has
enveloped the US (and much of its population) in technology and price
uncertainty. With no national broadband policy in place, multiple
service providers are targeting affluent urban areas, while leaving 
many

poor and rural dwellers to fend for themselves. In big cities, that
means consumers face daunting broadband choices. Should they sign a
contract with their cable provider or telco? Wait for the installation
of a Wi-Fi network? Choose an alternate provider like EarthLink? And
which broadband technology is the best? Many just stick with what they
know best: the slow but reliable telephone.




  



--
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 FYI: New position

[Anthony Will]

It will be great to have you concentrating on our industry once again 
Patrick.  You have helped bring many good things to this industry and I 
am looking forward to finally meeting you at some time in the future.


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.

Patrick Leary wrote:

Having received John Scrivner's specific approval, I offer the following
note:

Dear WISPA members,

I wanted to drop you folks a note that Alvarion has challenged me to get
back to my roots, so to speak. I have asked to personally lead a renewed
focus on the WISP markets. Going forward, my energies will be full time
dedicated to this activity -- to you and your needs as operators and as
an industry. Over the past few years managing our North American
marketing team, I realized how much I missed daily interaction with
WISPs, especially meeting and getting to know you on your turf. The new
role has some wide accountability and will also allow me to again be an
active advocate for WISPs with the press, thought leaders and officials.

As part of this, we will be enacting some innovative new ideas that
among other interesting and useful benefits to help your WISP
operations, should have direct business model benefits for small WISPs.
Details will come a bit later.

I will put my 8 years worth of contacts to work and know that I look
forward to building on my existing relationships with many of you, as
well as making lots of new friends.

Finally, please feel free to e-mail me directly with ideas about how I
can help, constructive criticism, etc. regardless of whether or not you
are an Alvarion-based operator. 


Sincerely,

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



 
 


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




  

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] MiniPCI wireless card recommendation...

[Anthony Will]

It looks like he is talking about the antenna ports on the mPCI card.  
There are generally two u.fl or some combo u.fl and sma, etc.  He is 
stating that if you utilize the wrong port on the card then what is 
configured you will loss 20+db of signal.  It also looks like the 
WLM54AG's have an issue where they loss some signal if you utilize the 
secondary port / b port on the card. 
FYI I have not used the WLM54AG card as of yet.  Sticking with my old 
reliable cm9's and SR5's


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.

John Scrivner wrote:
I suppose this information would be meaningful if I had any idea what 
you were talking about. Can you maybe put your thoughts into language 
people can understand who do not have intimate knowledge of the 
product you are discussing? I would really like to know what the 
differences are between the two products but I cannot understand what 
you are talking about here. Your help is appreciated.

Thanks,
Scriv

Mark Koskenmaki wrote:


After spending a lot of time working with a couple WLM54AG's,  I know
without a doubt that the "main" is different for a CM9 and the Compex 
radio.


You can switch to the "b" port, but as best I can tell, you still 
have some

loss as compared to using the main port.

In "auto", the difference between the two is around 12 db, manually 
chosen
or forced to one port or the other, it appears to be well more than 
20 db

isolation between them.




+++
neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East 
Washington

email me at mark at neofast dot net
541-969-8200
Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net

- Original Message - From: "Mark McElvy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 4:53 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] MiniPCI wireless card recommendation...


Did not try the other port and the signals were lower on both ends.



Mark





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Harold Bledsoe
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 6:21 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] MiniPCI wireless card recommendation...



Did you try both antenna ports?  On the two that connected, were the
signals 12 to 14dB lower on both sides of the link?



-Hal


 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Wireless at the rescue

[Anthony Will]

Bridgewave and gigabeem (?) will do one gig or more and there are many 
optical solutions that can do 1 - 10 gig.  The issues with all of the 
above is the limited range of the devices.


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.

JNA wrote:

Yep. Orthogon or Motorola now

 http://www.orthogonsystems.com/products/ptp600.html


John

  

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mario Pommier
Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2006 2:24 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Wireless at the rescue

Is there a radio out there that will do 300Mbps?
The idea is to compete on cost against a landline point-to-point at
$7K/month, 3-year contract.
Would be sweet to even offer 200M.
Thanks.

Mario


---
[This e-mail was scanned for viruses by our AntiVirus Protection System]

--
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] EarthLink Unwires Anaheim, Announces Wholesale Program

[Anthony Will]

Im in MN where the city of Chaska has had a large tropos network running for a couple years.  About 80% of in home customers have to purchase a "wireless modem"  (CB3) to get a stable signal in their home.
Anthony WillBroadband Corp.On 7/3/06, Charles Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Tom,The WHOLE PURPOSE of a WiFi Mesh Network Strategy is to AVOID THE COST OFTHE CPE & TRUCK ROLLNow -- whether this theory works in practice is a whole nother issue-CharlesP.S. FWIW - personally, I find the the concept (from an ROI perspective) of
a service provider WiFi mesh to be a bit far-fetched, but then again, 10years ago, I told the founder of half.com that you was bonkers, and procededto get into the wireless biz =/
---CWLabTechnology Architectshttp://www.cwlab.com-Original Message-From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] OnBehalf Of Tom DeReggiSent: Monday, July 03, 2006 3:03 PMTo: WISPA General ListSubject: Re: [WISPA] EarthLink Unwires Anaheim, Announces Wholesale Program
The primary difference being that in the Canopy Fixed Wireless you areincluding end user CPE. The largest cost to detur take rate when WISPS makesubs pay for it.Its likely that one can assume that many of the subscribers will need to
install outdoor equipment (adding $100-$300 BUCKS), to reliably connect tothe mesh.  So you could easilly add $1.5 million to the mesh cost for CPE,or remove $1.5million from the Fix Wireless plan if you were going to
compare apples to apples.What Mesh still has on its side is mobility.  The question is what valueshould a WISP put on that. Mobility can be easilly be the reason to justifywhy a muni should support a oublic interest project. (cable and DSL go to
the home but NOT mobile for teh community to share.).  Mobilty also allowMuni type applications, such as to support travelling users (commerce), orMobile government work force.  Mesh also gives Muni bargining power in the
deployment, as it uses an asset of value that the governement has to tradeand offer (easements, light poles, and power from them).In a Fixed Wireless deployment it could easilly be argued that tehgivernemnt has little assets of value to the provider. Its usually the
independant property owners tht have the preferred assets for signaldistribution.  For example, in my county, I am allowed free access to cityinfrastructure as a requirement that allowed tower building restrictions to
be passed years ago. But yet I chose to pay for broadcast sites, because tehGovernement do not own the best sites that are advantageous to me.Part of my point is that its not jsut the radios costs that are relevant.
I'm starting to think that the Tropos, use all verticle, use only onechannel all across the network, design may not be to bad an ideas after all.If it solves the challenge to get mobility well, and does not work well for
subs inside their homes, it still allows lots of spectrum for the highquality Fixed Wireless providers.Part of the arguement is that its possible that MESH may be the only way toget mobilty well. And maybe the answer is to deliver it with the least
impact on everyone else.Of course Alvarion mobile products have shown otherwise for vehichle mobilesolutions.So what would happen if more Fixed Wireless manufacturers made Mobile CPEs?Would it get rid of some of teh need of mesh? Sure mesh gives person/laptop
mobility, but will any one really use it?  There is a good arguement that ifusage of hotspots is low in public areas (parks, cafes, etc) it would beeven lower on the streets and such.  There is still very little evidence
that communities will get the MESH signal insidet heir home reliably withoutexternal CPE equipment.Tom DeReggiRapidDSL & Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband- Original Message -
From: "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 1:43 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] EarthLink Unwires Anaheim, Announces Wholesale Program>a whole 49 square feet, eh ?  Real hard.  :)Some interesting thoughts for FridayI forget the exact numbers, but Tropos recommends something like 20 APs /
square mile to get 95% coverage at b/g rates49 square miles = 49*20 ~ 960 ApsPart# MTR-52103000-500AA is a 500 pack of HotZone Aps on their price sheetthat goes for about $1.5 million list So that's $3 million in Aps -- for
simplicity -- lets assume that mounting hardware, power taps, etc is equalto the equivalent in discount Then we need to add in the additionalinfrastructure, like backhaul SMs, Routers, Servers, etc and the services
required to install / implement the system...Experience from a similar type deployment (~40 square miles) pegs the entireproject at about $5 million for E,F&IMarket Data:Census information puts Anaheim w/ a population of 328k people (97k
households)Median income for a household is $47kAccording to the March 2006 PEW Internet report -- in 2006, 46% of thepopulation that makes between $30-75k / year h

Re: [WISPA] Fw: [TVWHITESPACE] WISPA Whitespace possition paper

[Anthony Will]

what docket #???

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


fyi

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 - Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 4:54 PM
Subject: RE: [TVWHITESPACE] WISPA Whitespace possition paper


Thanks Marlon.  The example you cite is a real two-fer, as it also
evidences the mentality of WISPs to be "good neighbors" and responsible
spectrum stewards. As you know, the other side is constantly screaming
"tragedy of the commons" ... And claiming only licensed users can
operate efficiently.  We appreciate any examples -- and also even simple
letter comments posted into this docket, ideally prior to May 31.  We'll
circulate our concept draft comments soon.

Michael Calabrese
Vice President
New America Foundation
www.spectrumpolicy.org
202-986-2700 x327
Fax: 202-986-3696


-Original Message-
From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 12:12 PM

To: Michael Calabrese
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Jim Snider; Naveen Lakshmipathy;
wireless@wispa.org; FCC Discussion; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Steve Stroh
Subject: Re: [TVWHITESPACE] WISPA Whitespace possition paper
Importance: High

Hi All,

We're working (again) with the New America Foundation and the Media
Access Project on some 900 MHz issues.  There is a push in place for
making at least some of the 900 band licensed.

We need some SPECIFIC examples of what people are able to do with 900
MHz that they were/are unable to do with other bands.

Here's mine:

We have a backhaul link in place to service a house on a hill
overlooking a tribal casino complex.  The casino needs internet access
in order to run credit cards, track it's "Bass Reel"  preferred customer
base, monitor it's fuel pumps etc.

The most direct path from my internet access to this house has just
enough trees in the way that a 2.4 GHz link would never be stable.
Unless, that is, we cranked the power up to the allowable max levels,
even though this is only a 3ish mile link.

As responsible stewards of the spectrum we decided to spend the extra
money and put in a 900 MHz system instead.  We need more time on the
link to make sure that it'll be stable long term, but so far so good.
We have plenty of signal for a 99.999% (maybe  100%) up time on that
link.  Best of all, we were able to use much LESS than the full legal
power limit to make this link work.

Please send any examples you can come up with ASAP so that everyone has
copies of them.  Please use Reply-all, don't just send them to me.

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



- Original Message -
From: "Michael Calabrese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Jim Snider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
"Naveen Lakshmipathy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 2:42 PM
Subject: RE: [TVWHITESPACE] WISPA Whitespace possition paper


Marlon -
For coalition comments - and your own, I hope - we really need specific
examples of WISPs that use 900 unlic band: how do they use it? Who do
they serve? Is there something special about that frequency (duh - but
I'd emphasize this to reinforce our push for TV band and also to counter
the licensee interests saying "hey, there's plenty of spectrum at 5 Ghz
..."). You get the drift.  Jim will collect those - for our comments and
to share with our big company, high-tech allies who we hope to convince
to file.

BTW, don't be intimidated by 158 comments ... Those date back many
years, since licensees have pushed this before; unfortunately, since
Martin is no friend of unlicensed, we need to defend fiercely.

Thanks!

Michael Calabrese
Vice President
New America Foundation
1630 Connecticut Ave, NW 7th Floor
Washington, DC 20815
202-986-2700 x327
Fax: 202-986-3696


-Original Message-
From: FCC NPRM for UHF TV Band Unlicensed Use
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Snider
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 12:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TVWHITESPACE] WISPA Whitespace possition paper

There are 158 filed comments.  I would suggest starting to slog through
them.

--Jim

J.H. Snider, Ph.D.
Research Director, Wireless Future Program New America Foundation 1630
Connecticut Ave., NW Washington, DC 20009
Phone: 202/986-2700
Fax: 202/986-3696
Web: www.newamerica.net
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My Book Website: speaksoftly.jhsnider.net My Personal Blogs:
jhsnider.net/telecompolicy, jhsnider.net/citizensassembly



-Original Me

Re: [WISPA] Brokers / Master Agents for Wireless ?

[Anthony Will]

Sorry for the late response to this one.  We wholesale our network to 
anyone that wants to.  We have designed a complete "turn key" solution 
too someone just using us as the last mile and utilizing their own 
bandwidth and servers.


Anthony Will
Broadband Solutions

Rick Smith wrote:



Anyone work with a Master Agent for selling their services ?

I've been approached by someone in the t-1 / dsl resale arena that 
would like to get quotes on addresses from wireless guys (US!) first...


Would this be the arena to ask for such qualifications or should we 
start up another list ?


R


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Universal Service Fund

[Anthony Will]

First of all we should all understand that USF is not going anywhere. 
Our nation’s telecommunications network is too important. Second with 
the above understanding we should try and push the legislation to 
account for the work we as WISP's are doing and allow us to contribute 
and receive funding from USF.


I reed an article about some proposed legislation that uses a reverse 
auction style for USF funding. This would allow for the most efficient 
network to receive the appropriate funding. We can in almost all cases 
implement the same or better network for less then an established Telco. 
Thus this legislation would give us the trim and fit organizations a 
competitive edge.


ABOVE ALL we need to be included in the new legislator. It should not be 
technology dependent but results dependent.


One thing to realize if this does happen that likely every Telco out 
there would start using wireless equipment to stay competitive and all 
the effects of that must be understood.


Anthony Will
Broadband Solutions

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

I talked (personally, not as WISPA) with the commerce committee 
co-chair's staff person on USF today.


What it LOOKED like was said in the conference hearing I saw (and she 
agreed that it sounded this way) was that USF had paid for the 
laptops. What really happened was that USF paid for other things 
allowing the school system to buy the laptops themselves.


In my mind this is a matter of semantics as it means that there wasn't 
as much money needed in the first place.


We had a really good talk. She said that in about two weeks they'll be 
working more in earnest on the issue. Coming up with more specific 
proposals for people to talk about.


On the white spaces issue. We talked about the ideas in our position 
paper. She didn't think that the idea that all TV spectrum should be 
open would fly. But did like the idea of using smart radios and 
allowing use now not after the DTV transition. She also seemed to 
understand the need for sub gig spectrum at higher power levels.


We'll see where it all goes.

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: "Dustin Jurman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 2:45 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Universal Service Fund



Hey Marlon,

I like your point about the laptops, we really need to check and make 
sure
it's outside of the USF charter. I think we definitely need more 
stories of

how USF is not bringing tangible results to communities, where WISPS are
delivering service to those communities self funded.

Dustin

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 1:32 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Universal Service Fund

Here's what I wrote up on USF. Several felt it's got some errors that 
need

fixing.

Feel free to fix this, toss it and start over. Anything at all.

But right now, officially, we're doing NOTHING. And that must change 
guys.

Someone needs to come up with a position paper for WISPA to work from.
Right now I've got some access to some in congress and I think we should
work with that!

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: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 10:25 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Universal Service Fund



Marlon has been asking us for a while to give him feedback on Universal
Service. We have not helped him as much as we should have. He asked for
input from the WISPA membership originally. I am asking everyone, 
members

or not, if you can help. Marlon has been asked by a member of the House
Commerce Committee (One of his Reps in Washington) to help them 
structure

legislation toward the re-working on the Universal Service Program.
Thoughts on the Hill are now leaning toward making it available to
multiple operators in a market and opening it to aid in broadband as 
well

as telco.

The feeling from most WISPs is two things to date. Most think the
government should make Universal Service just go away. I share some of
that feeling myself. What should be known though is that government 
rarely



makes things go away. They usually want a role. With that said we 
need to
give them ideas on how to make this program help us in our goal to 
bring

broadband into underserved and/or unserved areas.

To do this we need to understand what the program does, what was its
history, how it 

Re: [Fwd: RE: [WISPA] TV spectrum]

[Anthony Will]

Well below is the copy of the apologies I sent to my congressman.  I'm 
posting it here to just give everyone some cut and paste materials NOT 
to admonish Mr. Scrivner.  You acted with best intentions at heart and 
are obviously passionate about this industry.  Thank you for your 
initiative because I likely would not have know about this legislation 
until it was to late if you would not have posted what you have.  Thanks 
again,  Anthony


Apology sent to congressman,

It seems a previous message I sent earlier this evening was not 
accurate.  After further investigation on the details of this bill I am 
in support of this legislation.  I was mistaken in the fact about it 
limiting frequency use to 6 MHz but in reality the bill opens up most 
spectrum other then those 6 MHz.  I apologize for the strong wording in 
the previous message.  As you likely can tell I am passionate about this 
issue for our rural communities and have spent the last 8 years trying 
to deliver them the much needed High speed Internet resources they need. 

Again I offer my apologizes and understanding of these issues if you 
would like to find out more about how this issue impacts farmers, other 
rural community members or more about how local small business in MN are 
approaching this issue please contact me.


Anthony Will
Broadband Solutions


John Scrivner wrote:

We have a problem. It appears the press release we read earlier was 
wrong. Attached is the exact language of the bill. It is asking for 
ALL tv channels except for one small band. I do not know what is wrong 
with that one channel but this is actually a VERY GOOD bill. I am 
sorry for the mix up. I only acted on what I was told was the purpose 
of the bill. Had I read the ACTUAL bill this would not have happened. 
Dawn DiPietro, can you please send me contact information on the press 
outlet that sent out the previous information? It is time for us to 
SUPPORT this bill If you need help with language let me know but 
apparently I am not much help as I told you guys the wrong position on 
this one.. I learned a valuable lesson here gang. I will never again 
send out any notices to all of you for action prior to reading the 
ACTUAL bill and not just what he news tells us it is. I am very, very 
sorry for this terrible mix up. Please forgive me.

Scriv


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. INSLEE (for himself, Mrs. BLACKBURN, and Ms. BALDWIN) introduced

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on

*

A BILL

*

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to promote and

expedite wireless broadband deployment in rural and

other areas, and for other purposes.

//

/Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- /

//

/tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled/,

**

*SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. *

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘American Broadband

for Communities Act’’.

2

**

*SEC. 2. UNUSED TELEVISION SPECTRUM MADE AVAILABLE *

**

*FOR WIRELESS USE. *

Part I of title III of the Communications Act of 1934

(47 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end

the following:

**

*‘‘SEC. 342. UNUSED BROADCAST TELEVISION SPECTRUM *

**

*MADE AVAILABLE FOR WIRELESS USE. *

‘‘Any unused broadcast television spectrum in the

band between 54 and 698 megaHertz, inclusive, other

than spectrum in the band between 608 and 614 mega-

Hertz, inclusive, may be used by unlicensed devices, in-

cluding wireless broadband devices.’’.

**

*SEC. 3. FCC TO FACILITATE USE. *

Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this

Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall—

(1) adopt minimal technical and device rules in

ET Docket Nos. 02–380 and 04–186 to facilitate

the robust and efficient use of the spectrum made

available under section 342 of the Communications

Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 342) by unlicensed devices,

including wireless broadband devices; and

(2) establish rules and procedures to—

(A) protect incumbent licensed services, in-

cluding broadcast television and public safety

equipment, operating pursuant to their licenses

3

from harmful interference from such unlicensed

devices;

(B) address complaints from licensed

broadcast stations that an unlicensed device

using such spectrum causes harmful inter-

ference that include verification, in the field, of

actual harmful interference;

(C) require manufacturers of unlicensed

devices designed to be operated in this spectrum

to submit a plan to the Commission to remedy

actual harmful interference to the extent that

harmful interference is found by the Commis-

sion which may include disabling or modifying

the unlicensed device remotely; and

(D) require certification of unlicensed de-

vices designed to be operated in that spectrum

to ensure that they meet the technical criteria

established under paragraph (1) and can per-

form the functions described in subparagraph

(C).

March 31, 2006 (3:

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

[Anthony Will]

hhhmmm  should have started that with I MAYBE am wrong here

Anthony Will wrote:

Im I wrong here because I believe a T1 line utilizes TDD (Time 
Division Duplexing)?  Thus it is a half duplex solution.  In reality 
it feels like a full duplex solution due to the timing.

Anthony

Travis Johnson wrote:


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 you suggest branding your T1 or Fiber offerings as 

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

[Anthony Will]

Im I wrong here because I believe a T1 line utilizes TDD (Time Division 
Duplexing)?  Thus it is a half duplex solution.  In reality it feels 
like a full duplex solution due to the timing. 


Anthony

Travis Johnson wrote:


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 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 e

Re: [WISPA] COST Per Customer Analysis

[Anthony Will]

If you only have 10 - 30 customers or you have a very large network with 
little saturation, then yes that is right in the ball park but every 
customer you add spreads those cost out again.  I have found that it is 
easier to just take each customers cost to install and figure out an ROI 
per customer then other costs you put in a general expense format.  
Trying to figure out what each customer cost changes "hopefully" 
everyday.  Another way to look at it is by tower or POP location so that 
you can work to make each POP profitable before deploying another.  
Saturation of resources is key in this industry. 


Anthony
Broadband Solutions

Mark Nash wrote:


My partner has done some quick analysis at COST PER CUSTOMER.  This does not
include CPE hardware or one-time purchases...just monthly expenses that must
be covered by revenue from our customers.  Items like fuel, insurance, tower
leases, bandwidth, billing & administration, support costs, cell phones,
etc.  He came up with about $37 COST per subscriber.

I'm not really interested in how much we charge at this point...just coming
up with a valid calculation of COST.

Does $37 per subscriber seem right?  I think it's high (I've only given it
about 15 minutes worth of thought).

This is something, of course, that everyone should be looking at, so I think
some discussion would be helpful.

Mark Nash
Network Engineer
UnwiredOnline.Net
350 Holly Street
Junction City, OR 97448
http://www.uwol.net
541-998-
541-998-5599 fax


 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] TRANGO!!

[Anthony Will]

There are several 3rd party solutions to this I would look at 
www.lastmilegear.com they have the cyclone solution for 120* and omni 
antenna


Anthony

Kurt Fankhauser wrote:


   Trango Introduces New $149 WISP Subscriber Unit


 /- Lowest priced fixed wireless modem available -/

*SAN DIEGO, CA - January 18, 2006* - Trango Broadband Wireless, the 
leader in fixed broadband wNo, time to break out the soldering iron.


Kurt Fankhauser
WAVELINC
114 S. Walnut St.
Bucyrus, OH 44820
419-562-6405
www.wavelinc.com


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Thomas
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 9:44 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TRANGO!!

Do they have any AP's with wider than 60 degree beams?

John
   


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] FCC regs question

[Anthony Will]

This only applies to the 2.4ghz ISM band there are different rules for 
the 900mhz and 5.8 ISM band plus different rules for the UNII rules.


The ISM rules state, 900mhz is a total of 36dbm EIRP no mater if it is 
multi point or PtP.  5.8ghz is 1 watt power and as large a antenna you 
can put on it for PtP and 36dbm total EIRP for multi point.


This is how I understand the rules.  You are not technically allowed to 
swap out other manufacture antenna's only allowed to use lower gain 
antenna from the same manufacture this is of the same basic type that 
has the type acceptance registered with the FCC for any given radio 
transmitter.  For example if a pacwireless 18dbi flat panel is 
registered you can use any flat panel from pacwireless that is 18dbi or 
less in gain.  Now there has been a lot of "unofficial" statements by 
members of the FCC that have stated twists or bends in the antenna 
selection part of the rulings but I have yet to see anything that states 
otherwise on a official document.


Anthony


Tom DeReggi wrote:


Its spelled out towards the end of the document.

30 db max radio power + 6 db antenna. PTP 3 to 1 rule applies, to use 
use much larger antennas at CPE side, and every 3 db antenna gain, 
minus 1 db radio gain at CPE side.


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


- Original Message - From: "Jason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 1:59 PM
Subject: [WISPA] FCC regs question



List,

Can anyone tell me what the current FCC regs are regarding EIRP?  
When choosing an antenna radio combo are we limited to the maximum 
antenna gain that has been approved for use with that particular 
radio?  If so, it eliminates the Super Range 2 radio for me since 
it's approved for use with only a 2 dBi antenna.  Or are we limited 
to the calculated EIRP (the -1 dB for each 3dBi above 6dBi 
algorithm), which, would allow the use of a 16 dBi antenna with this 
radio?  I have read and read and it seems that this is very open to 
personal interpretation.  Also it's difficult to determine what the 
latest ruling is.


Jason Wallace

--
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] ezlinx.net SPAM

[Anthony Will]

um you spamed me.  I have never had dealings with your company and I 
have received unsolicited email from your company.  That is SPAM.


Anthony
Ruralnet Inc.

Jack Weinberg wrote:


Hello List,

My name is Jack Weinberg I am the president of Ezlinx.net.  We do NOT SPAM 
anyone.  We do make cold calls to WISPS to tell them of our services.  We DO 
NOT repair waverider. We are a legitimate company offering repair and selling 
refurbed equipment that has been tested with a warranty.   We do not keep the 
units we do not fix, we return them so the customer has a full accounting of 
their units sent in for repair.

If anyone has any issues with our company please feel free to contact me 
directly.


Jack Weinberg, President
69 Public Square , 14th Floor
Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701
570-823-9804
1-866-439-5469
Fax 570-823-9867
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  

http:// www.ezlinx.net  




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Pete Davis. NoDial.net
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 8:15 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] ezlinx.net SPAM


I got the same one email. I also get hit with cold calls for people 
wanting to fix my radios. I don't know if they are the same company, or 
a different scam. The call center making the calls doesn't seem to know 
much, but they REALLY want you to send them broken radios.


Them: Do you have any broken out of warranty Tranzeo (or transio) radios?
Me: No. I don't use Tranzeo
Them: We fix all major brands. What kind of wireless CPE do you use?
Me: Waverider. Do you fix Waverider?
Them: Let me check.. yeah, we fix them.
Me: How much.
Them: uh... does $275 sound right?
Me: Have you ever fixed one? We can buy new ones for about $250 in 
quantity.

Them: Oh yeah... we fix them all the time How many do you have?
Me: About 25
Them: Well if you send them in, we will send back half of the ones we 
fix for no charge.

Me: What do you do with the ones you can't fix?
Them: We keep them for spare parts.
Me: I see. Does your lab have a CCU to test signal level sensitivity with?
Them: Oh yeah, we have all kinds of meters and osciloscopes, and stuff.
Me: Do you know what a CCU is?
Them: uh... let me check. hold on
(long pause)
Them: did we give you the address to send the equipment to?
Me: What equipment?
Them: the Wave equipment.
Me: Should I send the EUM's, the SPK's, or the GLD's. Can you fix all of 
those models? (I made up the last two)

Them: Oh yeah. We fix all of those.
Me: I will let you know.

Someone posted recently on how their CPE serial numbers that they sent 
in for repair showed up on ebay. I am not sure these "repair shops" 
spammers aren't fronts for ebay shops, but if they do a lot of "fix and 
send back half" work, they could have a lot of excess refirb equipment 
legitimately. I am just leary of anyone who "can fix anything" but 
doesn't know what it is.

Pete Davis
NoDial.net.


Reliable Internet, LLC wrote:

 

Do all you guys get this crap from them about once a week?  I have 
asked several times to be removed from their spam list.  Did they 
harvest this list or p-15?


Today I responded asking about how they fix these "Transio" they talk 
about.  LOL!  Stupid spammers can't even spell what they fix.  :)  I 
hate spam.


 Original Message 
Subject:we fix transio, trango, motorola, alvarion equipment
Date:   Tue, 22 Nov 2005 16:38:21 -0500 (EST)
From:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



  Jan Weinberg
  ezlinx
  1-866-439-5469




My name is Jan and I am with ezlinx.net.  We sell refurbished
equipment-if you are interested most of our inventory can be viewed at
store.ezlinx.net. our phone is 1-866-439-5469.  Please ask for Jan
Weinberg.

Also, we fix any broken or dead units that you may have
around-particularly alvarion, transio, trango, motorola.  We do not charge
you a dollar fee-you ship us your equipment, we fix as much as we can and
then ship you back one half of all that we repair.  In other words, the
only cost to you is the shipping.

We also sell refurbished equipment and purchase any working or non working
units you may have around.

Looking forward to doing business with you.

Please feel free to contact me at 1-866-439-5469.  If I am not in please
ask for Jack.



Jan Weinberg
ezlinx.net































--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.4/176 - Release Date: 11/20/2005




   



 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] I need 100% participation RIGHT NOW! This means YOU!

[Anthony Will]

The FCC Acknowledges Receipt of Comments From …
Anthony Will
…and Thank You for Your Comments



  

   Your Confirmation Number is:
   '2005929725855 '  

  


  

  Date Received:
  Sep 29 2005 


  Docket:
  04-186 




  Number of Files Transmitted: 
  1

  


Anthony Will
Ruralnet Inc.

John Scrivner wrote:

Here is my confirmation:
  
  
*The FCC Acknowledges Receipt of Comments From …
  
John Scrivner - Mt. Vernon. Net, Inc.
  
…and Thank You for Your Comments*
  
  
* Your Confirmation Number is: * '2005928723564 ' **
  
  
*Date Received:* *Sep 28 2005 *
  
*Docket:* *04-186 *
  
*Number of Files Transmitted: * *1*
  




-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Nationwide Peering - WISPBONE

[Anthony Will]

In central MN here also.   I would be very interested in a project such 
as this.  This is the ONLY way we will truly survive.  I am currently 
working on a way to get into the Metro area to gain access to cheap 
pipes.  Hopefully we will end up in XO's or calpops CO.


See how easy it is to get something like this started.  I know that I am 
south of Mike.  I also know that two other WISPs are south of me all the 
way to Iowa.  Now if we can get those guys on board anyone in Iowa or 
Illanios is likely close enough to make this real.  NOW from Illanios it 
really opens up.  I am an old friend to an operation on the west 
side of Chicago connected to Equinix, one of the largest carriers hotels 
in the nation.  Now with all the wisps together we could easily afford 
an OCx and get some real pricing.  And with everyone sharing in the 
expense we could make this licensed equipment for a rock solid backbone 
for all of our networks.


Anthony Will
Ruralnet Inc.
www.veryfastinternet.com (please excuse the cheesy site.  We are in 
process of completely reworking a new site.)



Mike Bushard Jr wrote:


I'm in, Central MN

Mike Bushard Jr
Reliable Internet Services
1st Rate Computers

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Brian Webster
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 12:10 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Nationwide Peering - WISPBONE

Hi Brian,
Well we led a session that started a dialog on this topic. It got
quite
loud at times. The end result was I am willing to donate time to map out
in one location all of the data people send me with locations of POP's,
fiber hotels and other inexpensive sources of bandwidth. This could be from
any source like fiber (lit or dark) or companies that have bandwidth to
sell. If there are WISP's who want to share the backbones they have, we can
map them too. I basically just need a list of locations by lat and long or
street address. If I can get enough different sources of data I will map it
and make it available on line. The idea is that WISP's can see how far away
from cheap backhaul they really are and then they can figure out a way to
bring it to their location. This could also serve as a way to get regional
groups together to build a mutually beneficial backbone. The mapping can
have clickable information about each site if that is included in the data
sent.
If this starts to take off the idea was suggested that a national
group or
co-op be formed to manage this backbone so that one person or company could
not bring down or segment part of the network. There were many ideas and
issues brought up about this. I don't want to get this thread started on all
of that. I really just want to see where were are with access to cheap
bandwidth and how we might be able to stitch together an ad hoc backbone for
the time being. Anyone who is interested in this project please send me an
email with WISPBONE in the subject line. I will create a distribution list
for now and if we get it going we can set up a list somewhere to have an
online forum. To date I have no input from any of the people who were in the
session. Just like most of these good ideas, I feel it will die because
everyone is too busy with their own business and they hope someone else will
get it going.



Thank You,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com <http://www.wirelessmapping.com>
Free World Dialup #481416


-Original Message-
From: Brian Rohrbacher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 12:28 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nationwide Peering


I was told to bring this up after WiNog.  Well...

--
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/