Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
h other's business models whether they are cash poor, cash rich or someplace in the middle. I am actually glad to see some data on this particular model because I think it actually could work well with $3.6M in yearly revenues. I think it is impressive. I wish we could all gain access to some of this spectrum, big cash, licensed WiMax gear and build it out. That does not mean I think it is the only model nor do I trash the occasional cash strapped guy building his first Wi-Fi POP with his VISA card nor the typical WISP operator who took out a second mortgage or similar "pound of flesh" financing to launch his first few towers using unlicensed. God bless all of them. I think we should all try to respect that each of us have a different approach. I certainly do not pretend to think I have all the answers and I appreciate those who share what they do to make their model work. I sense some sour grapes here due to this network being built in your territory. If you think it is a poor model then steal all their customers and teach them a lesson. Tell us how you did please. That would tell a far more compelling story than just trashing their model on the list. Scriv On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Travis Johnson wrote: Plus the cost of the 2.5ghz license in our area... which I heard they paid like $7,000,000 for (in an area with 50,000 population)... plus the licensed backhauls (Ceragon 18ghz in a ring), plus tower rent (they are on the most expensive towers in town). No wonder they are blowing through investor money faster than they can get it... LOL Travis John Rock wrote: Hmmm 4 sector 2.5 Ghz system 1,000,000 deployment 4000 users paying you $74.99 for Voip and Data from your deployment It all works Priceless Do the math 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. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 7:44 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? Hi, We have BridgeMaxx in our area. They are using 2.5ghz licensed with Alvarion WiMax equipment. This is the "top of the line", $50k per sector type stuff. Then I can also tell you that we are seeing a LOT of antennas that have to be mounted outdoors, on a tripod with a 10ft pole to get over the trees. The NLOS doesn't seem to be working very well, especially on several of these the tower is less than a mile away. So they spent $250k per tower x 4 towers in our area and they are still having to roll a truck and do an outdoor install. And this is even with 2.5ghz licensed. It makes me happy to see one of their antennas mounted outdoors... that's means they lost even more money for that install... :) Travis Microserv John Rock wrote: Matt, I have pictures to show you... Believe it or not? 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 Matt Liotta Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 3:29 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? On Mar 19, 2009, at 3:18 PM, Chuck Bartosch wrote: However, that (obviously) means it's not particularly viable in many situations where you don't see enough customers to support a wimax base station. But because 3.65 with diversity is supposed to deliver NLOS performance similar to or better than 900 MHz, you can see customers you wouldn't otherwise see. I can tell you for a fact that even with uplink subchannelization, diversity, and all of WiMAX's OFDM subcarriers, 3.65 does not del
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
, and no sales people at all. Seems to be working... WITHOUT investor > money. :) > > Travis > Microserv > > John Scrivner wrote: > > I do not care to see people trashing each other's business models > whether they are cash poor, cash rich or someplace in the middle. I am > actually glad to see some data on this particular model because I > think it actually could work well with $3.6M in yearly revenues. I > think it is impressive. I wish we could all gain access to some of > this spectrum, big cash, licensed WiMax gear and build it out. That > does not mean I think it is the only model nor do I trash the > occasional cash strapped guy building his first Wi-Fi POP with his > VISA card nor the typical WISP operator who took out a second mortgage > or similar "pound of flesh" financing to launch his first few towers > using unlicensed. God bless all of them. I think we should all try to > respect that each of us have a different approach. I certainly do not > pretend to think I have all the answers and I appreciate those who > share what they do to make their model work. I sense some sour grapes > here due to this network being built in your territory. If you think > it is a poor model then steal all their customers and teach them a > lesson. Tell us how you did please. That would tell a far more > compelling story than just trashing their model on the list. > Scriv > > > On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Travis Johnson wrote: > > > Plus the cost of the 2.5ghz license in our area... which I heard they > paid like $7,000,000 for (in an area with 50,000 population)... plus the > licensed backhauls (Ceragon 18ghz in a ring), plus tower rent (they are > on the most expensive towers in town). > > No wonder they are blowing through investor money faster than they can > get it... LOL > > Travis > > > John Rock wrote: > > > Hmmm > > 4 sector 2.5 Ghz system > > 1,000,000 deployment > > 4000 users paying you $74.99 for Voip and Data from your deployment > > It all works > > Priceless > > Do the math > > > > > > 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/> 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. > > > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Travis Johnson > Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 7:44 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > > > Hi, > > We have BridgeMaxx in our area. They are using 2.5ghz licensed with Alvarion > WiMax equipment. This is the "top of the line", $50k per sector type stuff. > Then I can also tell you that we are seeing a LOT of antennas that have to > be mounted outdoors, on a tripod with a 10ft pole to get over the trees. The > NLOS doesn't seem to be working very well, especially on several of these > the tower is less than a mile away. > > So they spent $250k per tower x 4 towers in our area and they are still > having to roll a truck and do an outdoor install. And this is even with > 2.5ghz licensed. It makes me happy to see one of their antennas mounted > outdoors... that's means they lost even more money for that install... :) > > Travis > Microserv > > John Rock wrote: > > Matt, > I have pictures to show you... > Believe it or not? > > 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
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
fidential 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. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 7:44 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? Hi, We have BridgeMaxx in our area. They are using 2.5ghz licensed with Alvarion WiMax equipment. This is the "top of the line", $50k per sector type stuff. Then I can also tell you that we are seeing a LOT of antennas that have to be mounted outdoors, on a tripod with a 10ft pole to get over the trees. The NLOS doesn't seem to be working very well, especially on several of these the tower is less than a mile away. So they spent $250k per tower x 4 towers in our area and they are still having to roll a truck and do an outdoor install. And this is even with 2.5ghz licensed. It makes me happy to see one of their antennas mounted outdoors... that's means they lost even more money for that install... :) Travis Microserv John Rock wrote: Matt, I have pictures to show you... Believe it or not? 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 Matt Liotta Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 3:29 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? On Mar 19, 2009, at 3:18 PM, Chuck Bartosch wrote: However, that (obviously) means it's not particularly viable in many situations where you don't see enough customers to support a wimax base station. But because 3.65 with diversity is supposed to deliver NLOS performance similar to or better than 900 MHz, you can see customers you wouldn't otherwise see. I can tell you for a fact that even with uplink subchannelization, diversity, and all of WiMAX's OFDM subcarriers, 3.65 does not deliver NLOS performance similar to or better than 900Mhz. Throw all the technology you want at it and 3.65 is still not going to get through much foliage. NLOS performance in an urban environment on the other hand is great. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
I do not care to see people trashing each other's business models whether they are cash poor, cash rich or someplace in the middle. I am actually glad to see some data on this particular model because I think it actually could work well with $3.6M in yearly revenues. I think it is impressive. I wish we could all gain access to some of this spectrum, big cash, licensed WiMax gear and build it out. That does not mean I think it is the only model nor do I trash the occasional cash strapped guy building his first Wi-Fi POP with his VISA card nor the typical WISP operator who took out a second mortgage or similar "pound of flesh" financing to launch his first few towers using unlicensed. God bless all of them. I think we should all try to respect that each of us have a different approach. I certainly do not pretend to think I have all the answers and I appreciate those who share what they do to make their model work. I sense some sour grapes here due to this network being built in your territory. If you think it is a poor model then steal all their customers and teach them a lesson. Tell us how you did please. That would tell a far more compelling story than just trashing their model on the list. Scriv On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Travis Johnson wrote: > Plus the cost of the 2.5ghz license in our area... which I heard they > paid like $7,000,000 for (in an area with 50,000 population)... plus the > licensed backhauls (Ceragon 18ghz in a ring), plus tower rent (they are > on the most expensive towers in town). > > No wonder they are blowing through investor money faster than they can > get it... LOL > > Travis > > > John Rock wrote: >> Hmmm >> >> 4 sector 2.5 Ghz system >> >> 1,000,000 deployment >> >> 4000 users paying you $74.99 for Voip and Data from your deployment >> >> It all works >> >> Priceless >> >> Do the math >> >> >> >> >> >> 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/> 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. >> >> >> >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Travis Johnson >> Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 7:44 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> We have BridgeMaxx in our area. They are using 2.5ghz licensed with Alvarion >> WiMax equipment. This is the "top of the line", $50k per sector type stuff. >> Then I can also tell you that we are seeing a LOT of antennas that have to >> be mounted outdoors, on a tripod with a 10ft pole to get over the trees. The >> NLOS doesn't seem to be working very well, especially on several of these >> the tower is less than a mile away. >> >> So they spent $250k per tower x 4 towers in our area and they are still >> having to roll a truck and do an outdoor install. And this is even with >> 2.5ghz licensed. It makes me happy to see one of their antennas mounted >> outdoors... that's means they lost even more money for that install... :) >> >> Travis >> Microserv >> >> John Rock wrote: >> >> Matt, >> I have pictures to show you... >> Believe it or not? >> >> 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
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Plus the cost of the 2.5ghz license in our area... which I heard they paid like $7,000,000 for (in an area with 50,000 population)... plus the licensed backhauls (Ceragon 18ghz in a ring), plus tower rent (they are on the most expensive towers in town). No wonder they are blowing through investor money faster than they can get it... LOL Travis John Rock wrote: > Hmmm > > 4 sector 2.5 Ghz system > > 1,000,000 deployment > > 4000 users paying you $74.99 for Voip and Data from your deployment > > It all works > > Priceless > > Do the math > > > > > > 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/> 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. > > > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Travis Johnson > Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 7:44 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > > > Hi, > > We have BridgeMaxx in our area. They are using 2.5ghz licensed with Alvarion > WiMax equipment. This is the "top of the line", $50k per sector type stuff. > Then I can also tell you that we are seeing a LOT of antennas that have to > be mounted outdoors, on a tripod with a 10ft pole to get over the trees. The > NLOS doesn't seem to be working very well, especially on several of these > the tower is less than a mile away. > > So they spent $250k per tower x 4 towers in our area and they are still > having to roll a truck and do an outdoor install. And this is even with > 2.5ghz licensed. It makes me happy to see one of their antennas mounted > outdoors... that's means they lost even more money for that install... :) > > Travis > Microserv > > John Rock wrote: > > Matt, > I have pictures to show you... > Believe it or not? > > 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 Matt Liotta > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 3:29 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > > On Mar 19, 2009, at 3:18 PM, Chuck Bartosch wrote: > > > > However, that (obviously) means it's not particularly viable in many > situations where you don't see enough customers to support a wimax > base station. But because 3.65 with diversity is supposed to deliver > NLOS performance similar to or better than 900 MHz, you can see > customers you wouldn't otherwise see. > > > > I can tell you for a fact that even with uplink subchannelization, > diversity, and all of WiMAX's OFDM subcarriers, 3.65 does not deliver > NLOS performance similar to or better than 900Mhz. Throw all the > technology you want at it and 3.65 is still not going to get through > much foliage. NLOS performance in an urban environment on the other > hand is great. > > -Matt > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Hmmm 4 sector 2.5 Ghz system 1,000,000 deployment 4000 users paying you $74.99 for Voip and Data from your deployment It all works Priceless Do the math 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/> 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. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 7:44 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? Hi, We have BridgeMaxx in our area. They are using 2.5ghz licensed with Alvarion WiMax equipment. This is the "top of the line", $50k per sector type stuff. Then I can also tell you that we are seeing a LOT of antennas that have to be mounted outdoors, on a tripod with a 10ft pole to get over the trees. The NLOS doesn't seem to be working very well, especially on several of these the tower is less than a mile away. So they spent $250k per tower x 4 towers in our area and they are still having to roll a truck and do an outdoor install. And this is even with 2.5ghz licensed. It makes me happy to see one of their antennas mounted outdoors... that's means they lost even more money for that install... :) Travis Microserv John Rock wrote: Matt, I have pictures to show you... Believe it or not? 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 Matt Liotta Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 3:29 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? On Mar 19, 2009, at 3:18 PM, Chuck Bartosch wrote: However, that (obviously) means it's not particularly viable in many situations where you don't see enough customers to support a wimax base station. But because 3.65 with diversity is supposed to deliver NLOS performance similar to or better than 900 MHz, you can see customers you wouldn't otherwise see. I can tell you for a fact that even with uplink subchannelization, diversity, and all of WiMAX's OFDM subcarriers, 3.65 does not deliver NLOS performance similar to or better than 900Mhz. Throw all the technology you want at it and 3.65 is still not going to get through much foliage. NLOS performance in an urban environment on the other hand is great. -Matt 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] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Hi, We have BridgeMaxx in our area. They are using 2.5ghz licensed with Alvarion WiMax equipment. This is the "top of the line", $50k per sector type stuff. Then I can also tell you that we are seeing a LOT of antennas that have to be mounted outdoors, on a tripod with a 10ft pole to get over the trees. The NLOS doesn't seem to be working very well, especially on several of these the tower is less than a mile away. So they spent $250k per tower x 4 towers in our area and they are still having to roll a truck and do an outdoor install. And this is even with 2.5ghz licensed. It makes me happy to see one of their antennas mounted outdoors... that's means they lost even more money for that install... :) Travis Microserv John Rock wrote: Matt, I have pictures to show you... Believe it or not? 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 Matt Liotta Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 3:29 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? On Mar 19, 2009, at 3:18 PM, Chuck Bartosch wrote: However, that (obviously) means it's not particularly viable in many situations where you don't see enough customers to support a wimax base station. But because 3.65 with diversity is supposed to deliver NLOS performance similar to or better than 900 MHz, you can see customers you wouldn't otherwise see. I can tell you for a fact that even with uplink subchannelization, diversity, and all of WiMAX's OFDM subcarriers, 3.65 does not deliver NLOS performance similar to or better than 900Mhz. Throw all the technology you want at it and 3.65 is still not going to get through much foliage. NLOS performance in an urban environment on the other hand is great. -Matt 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] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Matt, I have pictures to show you... Believe it or not? 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 Matt Liotta Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 3:29 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? On Mar 19, 2009, at 3:18 PM, Chuck Bartosch wrote: > However, that (obviously) means it's not particularly viable in many > situations where you don't see enough customers to support a wimax > base station. But because 3.65 with diversity is supposed to deliver > NLOS performance similar to or better than 900 MHz, you can see > customers you wouldn't otherwise see. > I can tell you for a fact that even with uplink subchannelization, diversity, and all of WiMAX's OFDM subcarriers, 3.65 does not deliver NLOS performance similar to or better than 900Mhz. Throw all the technology you want at it and 3.65 is still not going to get through much foliage. NLOS performance in an urban environment on the other hand is great. -Matt 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] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
I knew of NOANET, but their network map is hard to find. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "George Rogato" Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 12:39 PM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > I'm all set for now Mike. > We have been connected to another one your missing, Light Speed > Networks, formerly NOAHNET, since 2002 > > Recently we just got a new fiber carrier in town, they did a submarine > cable to Alaska. it lands just up the street from us and they work with > my fiber carrier. > Right now they have 4 10GigE circuits that go from here to Alaska and > who knows where. > > Thats what I would call capacity. > > > > > Mike Hammett wrote: >> It is 60 ish miles away, but Eugene has Electric Lightwave, 360 networks, >> Global Crossing, Level3 (they may even have fiber in your town). >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> >> -------------- >> From: "George Rogato" >> Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 11:24 AM >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >>> Yeah I realize that. We're luycky that Boneville and Williams did a big >>> fiber deal many years ago that put fiber all across the North West.. >>> Still is not easy to get access, the transport costs are quite high, but >>> it's possible. >>> >>> maybe some of the emp[hasis on the broadband stimulus money ought to be >>> pointed at getting big fiber pipes to the area or region rather than >>> getting fiber to the home. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> RickG wrote: >>>> George, >>>> Sounds great and mus be nice but there are no facilities in the >>>> boondocks! >>>> -RickG >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 10:15 PM, George Rogato >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Kinda high >>>>> If you are lucky and you have access to fiber consider this >>>>> >>>>> Cogent, if you buy a GigE port and commit to 200 megs, you can have it >>>>> for $5.00 per meg, or minimum of $1,000.00 per month and that comes >>>>> with >>>>> a whopping 200 megs, if you need to exceed 200 megs, it's just $5.00 >>>>> per >>>>> meg. >>>>> >>>>> If you get to $4,000 per month usage, then the price drops to $4.00 >>>>> per >>>>> meg. >>>>> >>>>> George >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Blair Davis wrote: >>>>>> Some simple numbers... >>>>>> >>>>>> $1700/month for 10Mbits. Much better than the $600 per 1.54Mbit I >>>>>> was >>>>>> paying out here. >>>>>> >>>>>> 1Mbit per Netflix or IPTV user. >>>>>> >>>>>> $170 cost of bandwidth per user. >>>>>> >>>>>> Users out here are not going to pay that. Period. >>>>>> >>>>>> The problem, out in the rural areas at least, is not delivering the >>>>>> bandwidth, it is getting it at a reasonable cost. >>>>>> >>>>>> These apps use an order of magnitude more bandwidth than the standard >>>>>> web browsing and email apps we are used to. But the users don't and >>>>>> won't understand that. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you went to buy a new TV and it used an order of magnitude more >>>>>> power >>>>>> to run it, your electric bill would soon show you the error of your >>>>>> ways. >>>>>> >>>>>> The only real solution to this problem is to move to per bit pricing. >>>>>> That way, users will see the cost of what they are doing and adjust >>>>>> their usage to what they are willing to pay for. >>>>>> >>>>>> Netflix, IPTV and other apps like them simply shift the their cost of >>>>>> doing business to us. Unless we either refuse to support these apps, >>>>>> or >>>>>> begin billing our users for them, it will kill us. >>>>>> >>>>>> The cable and dsl providers are st
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
I'm all set for now Mike. We have been connected to another one your missing, Light Speed Networks, formerly NOAHNET, since 2002 Recently we just got a new fiber carrier in town, they did a submarine cable to Alaska. it lands just up the street from us and they work with my fiber carrier. Right now they have 4 10GigE circuits that go from here to Alaska and who knows where. Thats what I would call capacity. Mike Hammett wrote: > It is 60 ish miles away, but Eugene has Electric Lightwave, 360 networks, > Global Crossing, Level3 (they may even have fiber in your town). > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > -- > From: "George Rogato" > Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 11:24 AM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > >> Yeah I realize that. We're luycky that Boneville and Williams did a big >> fiber deal many years ago that put fiber all across the North West.. >> Still is not easy to get access, the transport costs are quite high, but >> it's possible. >> >> maybe some of the emp[hasis on the broadband stimulus money ought to be >> pointed at getting big fiber pipes to the area or region rather than >> getting fiber to the home. >> >> >> >> >> RickG wrote: >>> George, >>> Sounds great and mus be nice but there are no facilities in the >>> boondocks! >>> -RickG >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 10:15 PM, George Rogato >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Kinda high >>>> If you are lucky and you have access to fiber consider this >>>> >>>> Cogent, if you buy a GigE port and commit to 200 megs, you can have it >>>> for $5.00 per meg, or minimum of $1,000.00 per month and that comes with >>>> a whopping 200 megs, if you need to exceed 200 megs, it's just $5.00 per >>>> meg. >>>> >>>> If you get to $4,000 per month usage, then the price drops to $4.00 per >>>> meg. >>>> >>>> George >>>> >>>> >>>> Blair Davis wrote: >>>>> Some simple numbers... >>>>> >>>>> $1700/month for 10Mbits. Much better than the $600 per 1.54Mbit I was >>>>> paying out here. >>>>> >>>>> 1Mbit per Netflix or IPTV user. >>>>> >>>>> $170 cost of bandwidth per user. >>>>> >>>>> Users out here are not going to pay that. Period. >>>>> >>>>> The problem, out in the rural areas at least, is not delivering the >>>>> bandwidth, it is getting it at a reasonable cost. >>>>> >>>>> These apps use an order of magnitude more bandwidth than the standard >>>>> web browsing and email apps we are used to. But the users don't and >>>>> won't understand that. >>>>> >>>>> If you went to buy a new TV and it used an order of magnitude more >>>>> power >>>>> to run it, your electric bill would soon show you the error of your >>>>> ways. >>>>> >>>>> The only real solution to this problem is to move to per bit pricing. >>>>> That way, users will see the cost of what they are doing and adjust >>>>> their usage to what they are willing to pay for. >>>>> >>>>> Netflix, IPTV and other apps like them simply shift the their cost of >>>>> doing business to us. Unless we either refuse to support these apps, >>>>> or >>>>> begin billing our users for them, it will kill us. >>>>> >>>>> The cable and dsl providers are starting to figure this out. >>>>> >>>>> Blair >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Tom DeReggi wrote: >>>>>>> Why is the wireless world happy with being 10 years behind the wired >>>>>>> world? >>>>>>> >>>>>> Depends who you are referring by stating "wireless world". >>>>>> >>>>>> The WISP providers are surely NOT "happy" with that. They are just >>>>>> realistic about what they have available. >>>>>> And they are creative enough to understand that there are still >>>>>> markets >>>>>> willing to deal with that, because WISPs have oth
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
It is 60 ish miles away, but Eugene has Electric Lightwave, 360 networks, Global Crossing, Level3 (they may even have fiber in your town). - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "George Rogato" Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 11:24 AM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > Yeah I realize that. We're luycky that Boneville and Williams did a big > fiber deal many years ago that put fiber all across the North West.. > Still is not easy to get access, the transport costs are quite high, but > it's possible. > > maybe some of the emp[hasis on the broadband stimulus money ought to be > pointed at getting big fiber pipes to the area or region rather than > getting fiber to the home. > > > > > RickG wrote: >> George, >> Sounds great and mus be nice but there are no facilities in the >> boondocks! >> -RickG >> >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 10:15 PM, George Rogato >> wrote: >> >>> Kinda high >>> If you are lucky and you have access to fiber consider this >>> >>> Cogent, if you buy a GigE port and commit to 200 megs, you can have it >>> for $5.00 per meg, or minimum of $1,000.00 per month and that comes with >>> a whopping 200 megs, if you need to exceed 200 megs, it's just $5.00 per >>> meg. >>> >>> If you get to $4,000 per month usage, then the price drops to $4.00 per >>> meg. >>> >>> George >>> >>> >>> Blair Davis wrote: >>>> Some simple numbers... >>>> >>>> $1700/month for 10Mbits. Much better than the $600 per 1.54Mbit I was >>>> paying out here. >>>> >>>> 1Mbit per Netflix or IPTV user. >>>> >>>> $170 cost of bandwidth per user. >>>> >>>> Users out here are not going to pay that. Period. >>>> >>>> The problem, out in the rural areas at least, is not delivering the >>>> bandwidth, it is getting it at a reasonable cost. >>>> >>>> These apps use an order of magnitude more bandwidth than the standard >>>> web browsing and email apps we are used to. But the users don't and >>>> won't understand that. >>>> >>>> If you went to buy a new TV and it used an order of magnitude more >>>> power >>>> to run it, your electric bill would soon show you the error of your >>>> ways. >>>> >>>> The only real solution to this problem is to move to per bit pricing. >>>> That way, users will see the cost of what they are doing and adjust >>>> their usage to what they are willing to pay for. >>>> >>>> Netflix, IPTV and other apps like them simply shift the their cost of >>>> doing business to us. Unless we either refuse to support these apps, >>>> or >>>> begin billing our users for them, it will kill us. >>>> >>>> The cable and dsl providers are starting to figure this out. >>>> >>>> Blair >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Tom DeReggi wrote: >>>>>> Why is the wireless world happy with being 10 years behind the wired >>>>>> world? >>>>>> >>>>> Depends who you are referring by stating "wireless world". >>>>> >>>>> The WISP providers are surely NOT "happy" with that. They are just >>>>> realistic about what they have available. >>>>> And they are creative enough to understand that there are still >>>>> markets >>>>> willing to deal with that, because WISPs have other things to offer of >>> equal >>>>> or greater value, to creat a WISP market. >>>>> >>>>> I'm also not sure the public is "happy" with that. I haven't heard one >>>>> public advocate at Broadband public meetings advocating "Please give >>> money >>>>> to wireless companies so we can have slower service". Wireless will >>>>> be >>> a >>>>> part of Stimulus grants because... We can argue we'll get you service >>>>> sooner, and we'll stretch the dollar further to serve more areas and >>> people, >>>>> so less people get left without being served, and more people get >>>>> better >>>>> service than they currently have.
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
e are still > >> markets > >>>>>> willing to deal with that, because WISPs have other things to offer > of > >>>> equal > >>>>>> or greater value, to creat a WISP market. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'm also not sure the public is "happy" with that. I haven't heard > one > >>>>>> public advocate at Broadband public meetings advocating "Please give > >>>> money > >>>>>> to wireless companies so we can have slower service". Wireless will > >> be > >>>> a > >>>>>> part of Stimulus grants because... We can argue we'll get you > service > >>>>>> sooner, and we'll stretch the dollar further to serve more areas and > >>>> people, > >>>>>> so less people get left without being served, and more people get > >> better > >>>>>> service than they currently have. In the long run, with Wireless, > >>>> consumers > >>>>>> will have to compromise for less, in exchange for the instant > >>>> gratification > >>>>>> that can be gained today. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> WISPs deal with it because comparatively they are either broke, > lazy, > >> or > >>>>>> impatient, in order to meet demand. Or I should say, don't want to > end > >>>> up > >>>>>> broke. > >>>>>> I'm not meaning to be derogatory in using those terms. What I mean > >> is... > >>>>>> Sure we'd all like to lay fiber. We just don't want to wait 20 > years > >>>> for an > >>>>>> ROI (impatient :-). We don't have millions and billions of Finance > >>>> capabilty > >>>>>> upfront (broke :-). > >>>>>> We don't want to spend years trying to get permits and negotiating > >>>> easements > >>>>>> with entities that care less about advancing our cause quickly (lazy > >>>> :-). > >>>>>> The truth is Monopolies are willing to do all these things. But > they > >>>> also > >>>>>> grudgingly backout of their committments and delay as long as > >> possible, > >>>>>> because honestly they don't want to do it either, and are even more > >>>> lazy, > >>>>>> and clearly have all the time in the world, without competition > >> forcing > >>>> them > >>>>>> to work harder. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The truth is, Wireless providers DO NEED faster equipment. And the > >>>> Truth > >>>>>> is, we really aren't "lazy". (I was just kidding before :-) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So WiMax vendors, Make us faster equipment!!! That we can > Afford > >>>>>> today!!! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> There is a lot of grant money comming up this year. Here is your > >> chance > >>>> for > >>>>>> volume orders, from the WISP market. Give us a reason to stay > wireless > >>>>>> providers and not to become a fiber provider. Backhaul transport > >>>> providers > >>>>>> are doing their part. But I think last mile manufacturers still have > >> to > >>>> do a > >>>>>> better job. But more importantly give grant Decission makers a > reason > >> to > >>>>>> favor wireless. Give them speeds that public advocates will be > excited > >>>>>> about. And give us price points that will let us do microcells to > >>>> accomplish > >>>>>> top penetration. Wimax isn;t competing against wifi anymore, they > are > >>>>>> competing against fiber. I admit, Its a tall order to fill. But I > >> think > >>>>>> clever innovators should be able to fill it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> $7 billion is not a lot to come anywhere close to helping "All" > >>>> Americans > >>>>>> get next generation broadband. But $7 billion is a hech of a lot of > >>>> money > >>>>>> to inject into an ISP manufacturer industry. Lets just say $1 > billion > >> of >
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
more areas and >>>> people, >>>>>> so less people get left without being served, and more people get >> better >>>>>> service than they currently have. In the long run, with Wireless, >>>> consumers >>>>>> will have to compromise for less, in exchange for the instant >>>> gratification >>>>>> that can be gained today. >>>>>> >>>>>> WISPs deal with it because comparatively they are either broke, lazy, >> or >>>>>> impatient, in order to meet demand. Or I should say, don't want to end >>>> up >>>>>> broke. >>>>>> I'm not meaning to be derogatory in using those terms. What I mean >> is... >>>>>> Sure we'd all like to lay fiber. We just don't want to wait 20 years >>>> for an >>>>>> ROI (impatient :-). We don't have millions and billions of Finance >>>> capabilty >>>>>> upfront (broke :-). >>>>>> We don't want to spend years trying to get permits and negotiating >>>> easements >>>>>> with entities that care less about advancing our cause quickly (lazy >>>> :-). >>>>>> The truth is Monopolies are willing to do all these things. But they >>>> also >>>>>> grudgingly backout of their committments and delay as long as >> possible, >>>>>> because honestly they don't want to do it either, and are even more >>>> lazy, >>>>>> and clearly have all the time in the world, without competition >> forcing >>>> them >>>>>> to work harder. >>>>>> >>>>>> The truth is, Wireless providers DO NEED faster equipment. And the >>>> Truth >>>>>> is, we really aren't "lazy". (I was just kidding before :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> So WiMax vendors, Make us faster equipment!!! That we can Afford >>>>>> today!!! >>>>>> >>>>>> There is a lot of grant money comming up this year. Here is your >> chance >>>> for >>>>>> volume orders, from the WISP market. Give us a reason to stay wireless >>>>>> providers and not to become a fiber provider. Backhaul transport >>>> providers >>>>>> are doing their part. But I think last mile manufacturers still have >> to >>>> do a >>>>>> better job. But more importantly give grant Decission makers a reason >> to >>>>>> favor wireless. Give them speeds that public advocates will be excited >>>>>> about. And give us price points that will let us do microcells to >>>> accomplish >>>>>> top penetration. Wimax isn;t competing against wifi anymore, they are >>>>>> competing against fiber. I admit, Its a tall order to fill. But I >> think >>>>>> clever innovators should be able to fill it. >>>>>> >>>>>> $7 billion is not a lot to come anywhere close to helping "All" >>>> Americans >>>>>> get next generation broadband. But $7 billion is a hech of a lot of >>>> money >>>>>> to inject into an ISP manufacturer industry. Lets just say $1 billion >> of >>>> it >>>>>> would go to Wireless infrastructure. Thats a lot of gear. Lets start >>>>>> getting creative with those volume order low price offers? How low can >>>> you >>>>>> go to get a peice of that $billion? >>>>>> >>>>>> Manufacturers, Let us know! The industry is writing their grant >>>> proposals >>>>>> now. >>>>>> >>>>>> Tom DeReggi >>>>>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >>>>>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> - Original Message - >>>>>> From: "Kevin Suitor" >>>>>> To: "WISPA General List" >>>>>> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 3:23 PM >>>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Folks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I seem to have too much time on my hands since I'm on vacation. This >>>>>>>
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
;> WISPs deal with it because comparatively they are either broke, lazy, > or > >>>> impatient, in order to meet demand. Or I should say, don't want to end > >> up > >>>> broke. > >>>> I'm not meaning to be derogatory in using those terms. What I mean > is... > >>>> > >>>> Sure we'd all like to lay fiber. We just don't want to wait 20 years > >> for an > >>>> ROI (impatient :-). We don't have millions and billions of Finance > >> capabilty > >>>> upfront (broke :-). > >>>> We don't want to spend years trying to get permits and negotiating > >> easements > >>>> with entities that care less about advancing our cause quickly (lazy > >> :-). > >>>> The truth is Monopolies are willing to do all these things. But they > >> also > >>>> grudgingly backout of their committments and delay as long as > possible, > >>>> because honestly they don't want to do it either, and are even more > >> lazy, > >>>> and clearly have all the time in the world, without competition > forcing > >> them > >>>> to work harder. > >>>> > >>>> The truth is, Wireless providers DO NEED faster equipment. And the > >> Truth > >>>> is, we really aren't "lazy". (I was just kidding before :-) > >>>> > >>>> So WiMax vendors, Make us faster equipment!!! That we can Afford > >>>> today!!! > >>>> > >>>> There is a lot of grant money comming up this year. Here is your > chance > >> for > >>>> volume orders, from the WISP market. Give us a reason to stay wireless > >>>> providers and not to become a fiber provider. Backhaul transport > >> providers > >>>> are doing their part. But I think last mile manufacturers still have > to > >> do a > >>>> better job. But more importantly give grant Decission makers a reason > to > >>>> favor wireless. Give them speeds that public advocates will be excited > >>>> about. And give us price points that will let us do microcells to > >> accomplish > >>>> top penetration. Wimax isn;t competing against wifi anymore, they are > >>>> competing against fiber. I admit, Its a tall order to fill. But I > think > >>>> clever innovators should be able to fill it. > >>>> > >>>> $7 billion is not a lot to come anywhere close to helping "All" > >> Americans > >>>> get next generation broadband. But $7 billion is a hech of a lot of > >> money > >>>> to inject into an ISP manufacturer industry. Lets just say $1 billion > of > >> it > >>>> would go to Wireless infrastructure. Thats a lot of gear. Lets start > >>>> getting creative with those volume order low price offers? How low can > >> you > >>>> go to get a peice of that $billion? > >>>> > >>>> Manufacturers, Let us know! The industry is writing their grant > >> proposals > >>>> now. > >>>> > >>>> Tom DeReggi > >>>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > >>>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> - Original Message - > >>>> From: "Kevin Suitor" > >>>> To: "WISPA General List" > >>>> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 3:23 PM > >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Folks, > >>>>> > >>>>> I seem to have too much time on my hands since I'm on vacation. This > >>>>> thread prompted me to put a quick back of the napkin ROI analysis > >>>>> together to see which service options I'd want to be pushing on the > >>>>> market. > >>>>> > >>>>> What I did was review Bell Canada's service offer - why, because they > >>>>> offer Wireless, DSL & Fiber based Internet services in competition to > >>>>> Rogers Cable and Cogeco Cable (ON) and Videotron and Cogeco Cable(Qc) > >>>>> along with a variety of WISPs, satellite providers, in other words > the > >>>>> entire spectrum of competition. As many of you may know Canad
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
entities that care less about advancing our cause quickly (lazy >> :-). >>>> The truth is Monopolies are willing to do all these things. But they >> also >>>> grudgingly backout of their committments and delay as long as possible, >>>> because honestly they don't want to do it either, and are even more >> lazy, >>>> and clearly have all the time in the world, without competition forcing >> them >>>> to work harder. >>>> >>>> The truth is, Wireless providers DO NEED faster equipment. And the >> Truth >>>> is, we really aren't "lazy". (I was just kidding before :-) >>>> >>>> So WiMax vendors, Make us faster equipment!!! That we can Afford >>>> today!!! >>>> >>>> There is a lot of grant money comming up this year. Here is your chance >> for >>>> volume orders, from the WISP market. Give us a reason to stay wireless >>>> providers and not to become a fiber provider. Backhaul transport >> providers >>>> are doing their part. But I think last mile manufacturers still have to >> do a >>>> better job. But more importantly give grant Decission makers a reason to >>>> favor wireless. Give them speeds that public advocates will be excited >>>> about. And give us price points that will let us do microcells to >> accomplish >>>> top penetration. Wimax isn;t competing against wifi anymore, they are >>>> competing against fiber. I admit, Its a tall order to fill. But I think >>>> clever innovators should be able to fill it. >>>> >>>> $7 billion is not a lot to come anywhere close to helping "All" >> Americans >>>> get next generation broadband. But $7 billion is a hech of a lot of >> money >>>> to inject into an ISP manufacturer industry. Lets just say $1 billion of >> it >>>> would go to Wireless infrastructure. Thats a lot of gear. Lets start >>>> getting creative with those volume order low price offers? How low can >> you >>>> go to get a peice of that $billion? >>>> >>>> Manufacturers, Let us know! The industry is writing their grant >> proposals >>>> now. >>>> >>>> Tom DeReggi >>>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >>>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >>>> >>>> >>>> - Original Message - >>>> From: "Kevin Suitor" >>>> To: "WISPA General List" >>>> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 3:23 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Folks, >>>>> >>>>> I seem to have too much time on my hands since I'm on vacation. This >>>>> thread prompted me to put a quick back of the napkin ROI analysis >>>>> together to see which service options I'd want to be pushing on the >>>>> market. >>>>> >>>>> What I did was review Bell Canada's service offer - why, because they >>>>> offer Wireless, DSL & Fiber based Internet services in competition to >>>>> Rogers Cable and Cogeco Cable (ON) and Videotron and Cogeco Cable(Qc) >>>>> along with a variety of WISPs, satellite providers, in other words the >>>>> entire spectrum of competition. As many of you may know Canada ranks >> in >>>>> the top 10 worldwide for broadband penetration according to the latest >>>>> OECD rankings with 23.8% BB penetration, the United States ranked 15th >>>>> with 19.6% penetration. >>>>> >>>>> I opted not to include their wireless offer in the model. For the >>>>> record their 512/512 Portable Internet service using an AC powered >>>>> indoor CPE as the terminal device selling for $17.95/month; they offer >> a >>>>> 2000/800 Rural service with either indoor or outdoor CPE beginning at >>>>> $40/month; and a 3000/1000 Portable using the same indoor CPE as in the >>>>> first offer. All CPE are sold at $99 to the customer. >>>>> >>>>> What I've done is outline the UL/DL speeds, cost per month, and a >>>>> sliding scale of oversubscription rates (actual rate used by Bell seems >>>>> to be between 20 and 40 based upon historical data depending on take-up >>>>> rate in an area. This then generates a kbps / su
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
r equipment!!! That we can Afford > >> today!!! > >> > >> There is a lot of grant money comming up this year. Here is your chance > for > >> volume orders, from the WISP market. Give us a reason to stay wireless > >> providers and not to become a fiber provider. Backhaul transport > providers > >> are doing their part. But I think last mile manufacturers still have to > do a > >> better job. But more importantly give grant Decission makers a reason to > >> favor wireless. Give them speeds that public advocates will be excited > >> about. And give us price points that will let us do microcells to > accomplish > >> top penetration. Wimax isn;t competing against wifi anymore, they are > >> competing against fiber. I admit, Its a tall order to fill. But I think > >> clever innovators should be able to fill it. > >> > >> $7 billion is not a lot to come anywhere close to helping "All" > Americans > >> get next generation broadband. But $7 billion is a hech of a lot of > money > >> to inject into an ISP manufacturer industry. Lets just say $1 billion of > it > >> would go to Wireless infrastructure. Thats a lot of gear. Lets start > >> getting creative with those volume order low price offers? How low can > you > >> go to get a peice of that $billion? > >> > >> Manufacturers, Let us know! The industry is writing their grant > proposals > >> now. > >> > >> Tom DeReggi > >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > >> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > >> > >> > >> - Original Message - > >> From: "Kevin Suitor" > >> To: "WISPA General List" > >> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 3:23 PM > >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > >> > >> > >> > >>> Folks, > >>> > >>> I seem to have too much time on my hands since I'm on vacation. This > >>> thread prompted me to put a quick back of the napkin ROI analysis > >>> together to see which service options I'd want to be pushing on the > >>> market. > >>> > >>> What I did was review Bell Canada's service offer - why, because they > >>> offer Wireless, DSL & Fiber based Internet services in competition to > >>> Rogers Cable and Cogeco Cable (ON) and Videotron and Cogeco Cable(Qc) > >>> along with a variety of WISPs, satellite providers, in other words the > >>> entire spectrum of competition. As many of you may know Canada ranks > in > >>> the top 10 worldwide for broadband penetration according to the latest > >>> OECD rankings with 23.8% BB penetration, the United States ranked 15th > >>> with 19.6% penetration. > >>> > >>> I opted not to include their wireless offer in the model. For the > >>> record their 512/512 Portable Internet service using an AC powered > >>> indoor CPE as the terminal device selling for $17.95/month; they offer > a > >>> 2000/800 Rural service with either indoor or outdoor CPE beginning at > >>> $40/month; and a 3000/1000 Portable using the same indoor CPE as in the > >>> first offer. All CPE are sold at $99 to the customer. > >>> > >>> What I've done is outline the UL/DL speeds, cost per month, and a > >>> sliding scale of oversubscription rates (actual rate used by Bell seems > >>> to be between 20 and 40 based upon historical data depending on take-up > >>> rate in an area. This then generates a kbps / subscriber figure which > >>> was then divided into the capacity per sector (I'm using the average > >>> real world sector capacity from our worldwide base of 7 MHz RedMAX > >>> customers as reported by our Redline Management Suite application that > >>> we use to monitor production networks under a professional services > >>> agreement). I then divided this by the avg kbps/client to calculate > the > >>> maximum subscribers per sector. I then took the peak subs multiplied > by > >>> monthly ARPU to calculate the monthly and annual peak revenue stream > per > >>> sector. The required CAPEX per sector was calculated based upon a > >>> sector controller, shared common costs (GPS, UPS, tower climb, and > other > >>> site acquisition costs - WW avg.) and the cost of the number of CPE > >>> required by the peak subscriber calculation. The ROI in months is the >
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
gear. Lets start > getting creative with those volume order low price offers? How low can you > go to get a peice of that $billion? > > Manufacturers, Let us know! The industry is writing their grant proposals > now. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "Kevin Suitor" > > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 3:23 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > > > > Folks, > > I seem to have too much time on my hands since I'm on vacation. This > thread prompted me to put a quick back of the napkin ROI analysis > together to see which service options I'd want to be pushing on the > market. > > What I did was review Bell Canada's service offer - why, because they > offer Wireless, DSL & Fiber based Internet services in competition to > Rogers Cable and Cogeco Cable (ON) and Videotron and Cogeco Cable(Qc) > along with a variety of WISPs, satellite providers, in other words the > entire spectrum of competition. As many of you may know Canada ranks in > the top 10 worldwide for broadband penetration according to the latest > OECD rankings with 23.8% BB penetration, the United States ranked 15th > with 19.6% penetration. > > I opted not to include their wireless offer in the model. For the > record their 512/512 Portable Internet service using an AC powered > indoor CPE as the terminal device selling for $17.95/month; they offer a > 2000/800 Rural service with either indoor or outdoor CPE beginning at > $40/month; and a 3000/1000 Portable using the same indoor CPE as in the > first offer. All CPE are sold at $99 to the customer. > > What I've done is outline the UL/DL speeds, cost per month, and a > sliding scale of oversubscription rates (actual rate used by Bell seems > to be between 20 and 40 based upon historical data depending on take-up > rate in an area. This then generates a kbps / subscriber figure which > was then divided into the capacity per sector (I'm using the average > real world sector capacity from our worldwide base of 7 MHz RedMAX > customers as reported by our Redline Management Suite application that > we use to monitor production networks under a professional services > agreement). I then divided this by the avg kbps/client to calculate the > maximum subscribers per sector. I then took the peak subs multiplied by > monthly ARPU to calculate the monthly and annual peak revenue stream per > sector. The required CAPEX per sector was calculated based upon a > sector controller, shared common costs (GPS, UPS, tower climb, and other > site acquisition costs - WW avg.) and the cost of the number of CPE > required by the peak subscriber calculation. The ROI in months is the > CAPEX divided by the monthly ARPU. > > I've highlighted the sweet spot avg 18 month ROI lines in each model > that indicates with between 19 and 229 subscribers, depending upon the > SLA you'd be able to achieve and ROI acceptable to almost any financier > using WiMAX. > > Cheers! > Kevin > > > NOTE: Modeled upon Bell Canada's Internet Service offer when using a > WiMAX BTS to deliver the stated SLAs (all are best effort, residential > services on a 7 MHz channel with mix of LOS and NLOS customers): > > Monthly Max Subs per > Sector Monthly ARPU / Annual ARPU / Required CAPEX / ROI > ARPU kbps Down kbps Up Total kbps Oversubscription > kbps Required/Sub 16000 loaded sector loaded sector loaded > sector (months) > $17.95 Essential 500 500 1000 40 25 > 640 $ 11,488.00 $ 137,856.00 $ > 300,750 26.17949 > $27.95 Essential+ 2000 800 2800 40 70 > 229 $6,388.57 $ 76,662.86 $ > 115,607 18.09593 > $37.95 Performance 7000 1000 8000 40 200 > 80 $3,036.00 $ 36,432.00 $ > 48,750 16.05731 > $42.95 MAX10 1 1000 11000 40 275 > 58 $2,498.91 $ 29,986.91 $ > 38,932 15.57953 > $72.95 MAX16 16000 1000 17000 40 425 > 38 $2,746.35 $ 32,956.24 $ > 29,691 10.81113 > > > Monthly Max Subs per > Sector Monthly ARPU / Annual ARPU / Required CAPEX / ROI > ARPU kbps Down kbps Up Total kbps Oversubscription > kbps Required/Sub 16000 loaded sector loaded sector loaded > sector (months) > $17.95 Essential 500 500 1000 30 33 > 480 $8,616.00 $ 103,392.00 $ > 228,750 26.54944 > $27.95 Essential+ 2000 800 2800 30 93 > 171 $4,791.43 $ 57,497.14 $ > 89,893 18.76118 > $37.95 Performance 7000 1000 8000 30 267 > 60 $2,277.00 $ 27,324.00 $ > 39,750 17.45718 > $42.95
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Personally I think it's great! I see the day when everyone tells Dish and Direct to take a flying leap. They'll stop paying for the shows that they not only don't watch but don't even want to support (anyone seen how screwed up MTV is now?). They'll just pay a few pennies per show and watch only what they want to watch. The AVERAGE person will be empowered to create shows like Star Trek, Desperate Housewives, Laugh-in, etc. The part that has me bothered right now is getting those shows transported. Not just from me to the customer, but from the creator to me. The internet, as designed, just isn't efficient at that sort of thing. We need MUCH better compression mechanisms. Higher speeds. More efficient spectrum usage. More spectrum. Smart radios etc. etc. etc. marlon - Original Message - From: "George Rogato" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 7:27 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > Thats what I see happening, older customers that never even knew how to > find youtube , never mind understnd or use P2P, are now doing the > netflix and dish on demand. > I'm seeing a growing number of people using those products now. > Kinda scary in some ways. > > George > > > Mike Hammett wrote: >> Once your users figure out they can watch their favorite shows or movies >> online, your tune will change. >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> >> >> From: Travis Johnson >> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 2:45 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> >> Because I can service where NONE of those other services exist... and I >> have for 10+ years. >> >> Residential users don't need more than 1-2Mbps. Our 512k package is >> FASTER than the 3Mbps CableOne service in our area (as tested by ZD Lab's >> benchmark program). >> >> Travis >> Microserv >> >> Mike Hammett wrote: >> 2 megs is yesterday's news. >> >> U-Verse is 18/1.5 >> FiOS is 50/20 >> Charter has 60/5 >> Comcast has 50/10 >> >> 2 megs is 36 times faster than 56k. Charter is 30 times faster than >> that. >> >> Why is the wireless world happy with being 10 years behind the wired >> world? >> >> >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> >> -- >> From: "Kevin Suitor" >> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 10:42 AM >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> We have customers worldwide who operate sectors typically with hundreds >> of residential clients with 2 Mbps downlink / 256 or 512 kbps uplink and >> some with who run entry level service (by NA standards) of 384 kbps >> downlink / 128 kbps uplink that have an average of 250 clients per >> sector with 6 sectors per BTS in an urban market. >> >> The WiMAX MAC is much more sophisticated than other MACs used in >> wireless networking. >> >> Best Regards, >> Kevin >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Mike Hammett >> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:20 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users on a >> WiMAX >> AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> >> -- >> From: "Jeff Booher" >> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM >> To: "'WISPA General List'" >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base >> station, >> that only supports 30 subscribers. >> >> - >> >> Jeff >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >> On >> Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer >> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> I'm certainly interested in ptmp. >> >> The Tranzeo gear is the sa
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Thats what I see happening, older customers that never even knew how to find youtube , never mind understnd or use P2P, are now doing the netflix and dish on demand. I'm seeing a growing number of people using those products now. Kinda scary in some ways. George Mike Hammett wrote: > Once your users figure out they can watch their favorite shows or movies > online, your tune will change. > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > > From: Travis Johnson > Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 2:45 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > > Because I can service where NONE of those other services exist... and I have > for 10+ years. > > Residential users don't need more than 1-2Mbps. Our 512k package is FASTER > than the 3Mbps CableOne service in our area (as tested by ZD Lab's benchmark > program). > > Travis > Microserv > > Mike Hammett wrote: > 2 megs is yesterday's news. > > U-Verse is 18/1.5 > FiOS is 50/20 > Charter has 60/5 > Comcast has 50/10 > > 2 megs is 36 times faster than 56k. Charter is 30 times faster than that. > > Why is the wireless world happy with being 10 years behind the wired world? > > > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > ------ > From: "Kevin Suitor" > Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 10:42 AM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > We have customers worldwide who operate sectors typically with hundreds > of residential clients with 2 Mbps downlink / 256 or 512 kbps uplink and > some with who run entry level service (by NA standards) of 384 kbps > downlink / 128 kbps uplink that have an average of 250 clients per > sector with 6 sectors per BTS in an urban market. > > The WiMAX MAC is much more sophisticated than other MACs used in > wireless networking. > > Best Regards, > Kevin > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Mike Hammett > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:20 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users on a > WiMAX > AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > -- > From: "Jeff Booher" > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM > To: "'WISPA General List'" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base > station, > that only supports 30 subscribers. > > - > > Jeff > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > On > Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > I'm certainly interested in ptmp. > > The Tranzeo gear is the same as Aperto isn't it? > marlon > > - Original Message - > From: "Gino Villarini" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > > Ligowave its ptp in 3.65... > > Might wanna look at tranzeo for 3.65 ptmp > > > Gino A. Villarini > g...@aeronetpr.com > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. > tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > On > Behalf Of Leon Zetekoff > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:32 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > Hi Marlon...I'd look at the Ligowave stuff similar in principle to > the > UBNT stuff but I think much better. That's what I'd do today. > > Take care leon > > Marlon K. Schafer wrote: > I'm looking into this too. > > So far I can't find a solution for rural towers. A 3 sector install > at $20k? Not to service the 20 people that will be able to even see > that tower > > Anyone have any better ideas? > marlon > > - Original Message - > From: "Gino Villarini" > To: "Motorola Canopy User Group" ; "WISPA >
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
We already have this happening... and we "cap" them at 128k and then call and tell them "our service does not support this. if you continue, we will terminate your service". Most people are OK with that. I'm not going to provide them a 2meg connection for them to use 24x7 for $49.95/month when it costs me $200 for that same bandwidth. I would rather lose those 10% causing the problem and keep the other 90% happy. Travis Mike Hammett wrote: > Once your users figure out they can watch their favorite shows or movies > online, your tune will change. > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > > From: Travis Johnson > Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 2:45 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > > Because I can service where NONE of those other services exist... and I have > for 10+ years. > > Residential users don't need more than 1-2Mbps. Our 512k package is FASTER > than the 3Mbps CableOne service in our area (as tested by ZD Lab's benchmark > program). > > Travis > Microserv > > Mike Hammett wrote: > 2 megs is yesterday's news. > > U-Verse is 18/1.5 > FiOS is 50/20 > Charter has 60/5 > Comcast has 50/10 > > 2 megs is 36 times faster than 56k. Charter is 30 times faster than that. > > Why is the wireless world happy with being 10 years behind the wired world? > > > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > -- > From: "Kevin Suitor" > Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 10:42 AM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > We have customers worldwide who operate sectors typically with hundreds > of residential clients with 2 Mbps downlink / 256 or 512 kbps uplink and > some with who run entry level service (by NA standards) of 384 kbps > downlink / 128 kbps uplink that have an average of 250 clients per > sector with 6 sectors per BTS in an urban market. > > The WiMAX MAC is much more sophisticated than other MACs used in > wireless networking. > > Best Regards, > Kevin > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Mike Hammett > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:20 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users on a > WiMAX > AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > -- > From: "Jeff Booher" > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM > To: "'WISPA General List'" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base > station, > that only supports 30 subscribers. > > - > > Jeff > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > On > Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > I'm certainly interested in ptmp. > > The Tranzeo gear is the same as Aperto isn't it? > marlon > > - Original Message - > From: "Gino Villarini" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > > Ligowave its ptp in 3.65... > > Might wanna look at tranzeo for 3.65 ptmp > > > Gino A. Villarini > g...@aeronetpr.com > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. > tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > On > Behalf Of Leon Zetekoff > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:32 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > Hi Marlon...I'd look at the Ligowave stuff similar in principle to > the > UBNT stuff but I think much better. That's what I'd do today. > > Take care leon > > Marlon K. Schafer wrote: > I'm looking into this too. > > So far I can't find a solution for rural towers. A 3 sector install > at $20k? Not to service the 20 people that will be able to even see > that tower.
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
I don't want to bug anyone especifically, but ... If we don't play by the rules on part90 3.65, We are at risk of 1- being fined, 2- giving negative feedback to FCC which gives more power to License users that are always against us (Unlicensed - Lite License users) To operate on 3.65 you MUST have a license and register your sites ... Period! Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 2:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? Might want to get a license for that. -Matt On Mar 20, 2009, at 12:59 PM, Travis Johnson wrote: > I have a single 3.65 Mikrotik system (RB411 with XR3-3.7 cards) > feeding three remote towers. Rock solid. 60+ days now. 11Mbps. 18 > miles. > > Travis > Microserv > > Matt Liotta wrote: >> >> According to the FCC you haven't deployed any 3.65 gear, so you must >> not be talking about the same radios I am. >> >> -Matt >> >> On Mar 18, 2009, at 6:33 PM, Travis Johnson wrote: >> >> >>> We have a sector feeding 3 other towers that has been rock solid for >>> 59 days now. Using a 10mhz channel, delivering 11Mbps at 18 miles. >>> >>> Travis >>> Microserv >>> >>> Matt Liotta wrote: >>> >>>> Yes, but the UBNT 3.65 radios are crap. Everyone we tried was >>>> worthless. On the other hand, every Redline 3.65 radio whether >>>> RedMax or AN80 has worked perfect. >>>> >>>> -Matt >>>> >>>> On Mar 18, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Brian Rohrbacher wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Wow. I have 200 UBNT radios out there and not a single failure, >>>>> not even to lightning. These are 2.4, but still. I sure do like >>>>> them. >>>>> >>>>> rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I put up some Ubiquiti based gear, one of the radios died about >>>>>> 1hr into carrying traffic. >>>>>> >>>>>> UBNT shipped me new ones to try overnight. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'll update. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> - Original Message - >>>>>> From: "Gino Villarini" >>>>>> To: "Motorola Canopy User Group" ; "WISPA >>>>>> General List" >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:55 AM >>>>>> Subject: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Fellow operators: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Any updates on your experienes with 3.65 gear? PMP and PTP? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Any updates on experiences with: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Redline, Aperto, Tranzeo, Vecima, Alvarion, Ligowave, Solectek, >>>>>>> Airspan ??? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gino A. Villarini >>>>>>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>>>>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>>>>>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>&g
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
hope <
Mike Hammett wrote:
I can do it now with Mikrotik. I'm not sure how it doesn't work with WiMAX,
given all of its magic and high cost.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
--
From: "Jack Unger"
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 1:18 AM
To: "WISPA General List"
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Once you figure out that "physics is physics" and that license-free
wireless frequencies will NEVER support fiber speeds no matter how much
you DEMAND from manufacturers then your tune will change...
Mike Hammett wrote:
Once your users figure out they can watch their favorite shows or movies
online, your tune will change.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
From: Travis Johnson
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 2:45 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Because I can service where NONE of those other services exist... and I
have for 10+ years.
Residential users don't need more than 1-2Mbps. Our 512k package is
FASTER than the 3Mbps CableOne service in our area (as tested by ZD Lab's
benchmark program).
Travis
Microserv
Mike Hammett wrote:
2 megs is yesterday's news.
U-Verse is 18/1.5
FiOS is 50/20
Charter has 60/5
Comcast has 50/10
2 megs is 36 times faster than 56k. Charter is 30 times faster than
that.
Why is the wireless world happy with being 10 years behind the wired
world?
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
--
From: "Kevin Suitor"
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 10:42 AM
To: "WISPA General List"
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
We have customers worldwide who operate sectors typically with hundreds
of residential clients with 2 Mbps downlink / 256 or 512 kbps uplink and
some with who run entry level service (by NA standards) of 384 kbps
downlink / 128 kbps uplink that have an average of 250 clients per
sector with 6 sectors per BTS in an urban market.
The WiMAX MAC is much more sophisticated than other MACs used in
wireless networking.
Best Regards,
Kevin
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:20 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users on a
WiMAX
AP anyway... not enough bandwidth.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
--
From: "Jeff Booher"
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM
To: "'WISPA General List'"
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base
station,
that only supports 30 subscribers.
-
Jeff
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
I'm certainly interested in ptmp.
The Tranzeo gear is the same as Aperto isn't it?
marlon
- Original Message -
From: "Gino Villarini"
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Ligowave its ptp in 3.65...
Might wanna look at tranzeo for 3.65 ptmp
Gino A. Villarini
g...@aeronetpr.com
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
On
Behalf Of Leon Zetekoff
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:32 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Hi Marlon...I'd look at the Ligowave stuff similar in principle to
the
UBNT stuff but I think much better. That's what I'd do today.
Take care leon
Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
I'm looking into this too.
So far I can't find a solution for rural towers. A 3 sector install
at $20k? Not to service the 20 people that will be able to even see
that tower
Anyone have any better ideas?
marlon
- Original Message -----
From: "Gino Villarini"
To: "Motorola Canopy User Group" ; "WISPA
General
List"
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:55 AM
Subject: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Fellow operators:
Any updates on your experienes with 3.65 gear? PMP and PTP?
Any updates on experiences with:
Redline, Aperto, Tranzeo, Vecima, Alvarion, Ligowave, Solectek,
Airspan ???
Gino A. Villarini
g...@aeronetpr.com
Aeronet Wireless Broadband C
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
I can do it now with Mikrotik. I'm not sure how it doesn't work with WiMAX, given all of its magic and high cost. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "Jack Unger" Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 1:18 AM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > Once you figure out that "physics is physics" and that license-free > wireless frequencies will NEVER support fiber speeds no matter how much > you DEMAND from manufacturers then your tune will change... > > Mike Hammett wrote: >> Once your users figure out they can watch their favorite shows or movies >> online, your tune will change. >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> >> >> From: Travis Johnson >> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 2:45 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> >> Because I can service where NONE of those other services exist... and I >> have for 10+ years. >> >> Residential users don't need more than 1-2Mbps. Our 512k package is >> FASTER than the 3Mbps CableOne service in our area (as tested by ZD Lab's >> benchmark program). >> >> Travis >> Microserv >> >> Mike Hammett wrote: >> 2 megs is yesterday's news. >> >> U-Verse is 18/1.5 >> FiOS is 50/20 >> Charter has 60/5 >> Comcast has 50/10 >> >> 2 megs is 36 times faster than 56k. Charter is 30 times faster than >> that. >> >> Why is the wireless world happy with being 10 years behind the wired >> world? >> >> >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> >> -- >> From: "Kevin Suitor" >> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 10:42 AM >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> We have customers worldwide who operate sectors typically with hundreds >> of residential clients with 2 Mbps downlink / 256 or 512 kbps uplink and >> some with who run entry level service (by NA standards) of 384 kbps >> downlink / 128 kbps uplink that have an average of 250 clients per >> sector with 6 sectors per BTS in an urban market. >> >> The WiMAX MAC is much more sophisticated than other MACs used in >> wireless networking. >> >> Best Regards, >> Kevin >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Mike Hammett >> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:20 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users on a >> WiMAX >> AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> >> -- >> From: "Jeff Booher" >> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM >> To: "'WISPA General List'" >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base >> station, >> that only supports 30 subscribers. >> >> - >> >> Jeff >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >> On >> Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer >> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> I'm certainly interested in ptmp. >> >> The Tranzeo gear is the same as Aperto isn't it? >> marlon >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Gino Villarini" >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> >> Ligowave its ptp in 3.65... >> >> Might wanna look at tranzeo for 3.65 ptmp >> >> >> Gino A. Villarini >> g...@aeronetpr.com >> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >>
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Once you figure out that "physics is physics" and that license-free wireless frequencies will NEVER support fiber speeds no matter how much you DEMAND from manufacturers then your tune will change... Mike Hammett wrote: > Once your users figure out they can watch their favorite shows or movies > online, your tune will change. > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > > From: Travis Johnson > Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 2:45 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > > Because I can service where NONE of those other services exist... and I have > for 10+ years. > > Residential users don't need more than 1-2Mbps. Our 512k package is FASTER > than the 3Mbps CableOne service in our area (as tested by ZD Lab's benchmark > program). > > Travis > Microserv > > Mike Hammett wrote: > 2 megs is yesterday's news. > > U-Verse is 18/1.5 > FiOS is 50/20 > Charter has 60/5 > Comcast has 50/10 > > 2 megs is 36 times faster than 56k. Charter is 30 times faster than that. > > Why is the wireless world happy with being 10 years behind the wired world? > > > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > ------ > From: "Kevin Suitor" > Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 10:42 AM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > We have customers worldwide who operate sectors typically with hundreds > of residential clients with 2 Mbps downlink / 256 or 512 kbps uplink and > some with who run entry level service (by NA standards) of 384 kbps > downlink / 128 kbps uplink that have an average of 250 clients per > sector with 6 sectors per BTS in an urban market. > > The WiMAX MAC is much more sophisticated than other MACs used in > wireless networking. > > Best Regards, > Kevin > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Mike Hammett > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:20 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users on a > WiMAX > AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > -- > From: "Jeff Booher" > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM > To: "'WISPA General List'" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base > station, > that only supports 30 subscribers. > > - > > Jeff > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > On > Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > I'm certainly interested in ptmp. > > The Tranzeo gear is the same as Aperto isn't it? > marlon > > - Original Message - > From: "Gino Villarini" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > > Ligowave its ptp in 3.65... > > Might wanna look at tranzeo for 3.65 ptmp > > > Gino A. Villarini > g...@aeronetpr.com > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. > tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > On > Behalf Of Leon Zetekoff > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:32 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > Hi Marlon...I'd look at the Ligowave stuff similar in principle to > the > UBNT stuff but I think much better. That's what I'd do today. > > Take care leon > > Marlon K. Schafer wrote: > I'm looking into this too. > > So far I can't find a solution for rural towers. A 3 sector install > at $20k? Not to service the 20 people that will be able to even see > that tower > > Anyone have any better ideas? > marlon > > - Original Message - > From: "Gino Villarini" > To: "Motorola Canopy User Group" ; "WISPA > General > List" > > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:55 AM > Subject: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > &
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Once you figure out that "physics is physics" and that license-free wireless frequencies will NEVER support fiber speeds no matter how much you DEMAND from manufacturers then your tune will change... Mike Hammett wrote: > Once your users figure out they can watch their favorite shows or movies > online, your tune will change. > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > > From: Travis Johnson > Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 2:45 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > > Because I can service where NONE of those other services exist... and I have > for 10+ years. > > Residential users don't need more than 1-2Mbps. Our 512k package is FASTER > than the 3Mbps CableOne service in our area (as tested by ZD Lab's benchmark > program). > > Travis > Microserv > > Mike Hammett wrote: > 2 megs is yesterday's news. > > U-Verse is 18/1.5 > FiOS is 50/20 > Charter has 60/5 > Comcast has 50/10 > > 2 megs is 36 times faster than 56k. Charter is 30 times faster than that. > > Why is the wireless world happy with being 10 years behind the wired world? > > > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > ------ > From: "Kevin Suitor" > Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 10:42 AM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > We have customers worldwide who operate sectors typically with hundreds > of residential clients with 2 Mbps downlink / 256 or 512 kbps uplink and > some with who run entry level service (by NA standards) of 384 kbps > downlink / 128 kbps uplink that have an average of 250 clients per > sector with 6 sectors per BTS in an urban market. > > The WiMAX MAC is much more sophisticated than other MACs used in > wireless networking. > > Best Regards, > Kevin > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Mike Hammett > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:20 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users on a > WiMAX > AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > -- > From: "Jeff Booher" > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM > To: "'WISPA General List'" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base > station, > that only supports 30 subscribers. > > - > > Jeff > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > On > Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > I'm certainly interested in ptmp. > > The Tranzeo gear is the same as Aperto isn't it? > marlon > > - Original Message - > From: "Gino Villarini" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > > Ligowave its ptp in 3.65... > > Might wanna look at tranzeo for 3.65 ptmp > > > Gino A. Villarini > g...@aeronetpr.com > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. > tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > On > Behalf Of Leon Zetekoff > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:32 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > Hi Marlon...I'd look at the Ligowave stuff similar in principle to > the > UBNT stuff but I think much better. That's what I'd do today. > > Take care leon > > Marlon K. Schafer wrote: > I'm looking into this too. > > So far I can't find a solution for rural towers. A 3 sector install > at $20k? Not to service the 20 people that will be able to even see > that tower > > Anyone have any better ideas? > marlon > > - Original Message - > From: "Gino Villarini" > To: "Motorola Canopy User Group" ; "WISPA > General > List" > > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:55 AM > Subject: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > &
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Bandwidth pricing is entirely market dependant. I've seen Level 3 under $10. Cogent really isn't that bad. It's main problem the past few years has been depeering as opposed to the full pipes it had before. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Travis Johnson Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 10:15 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? I have a quote from Level3 for $12.50 per meg and it's 10x the bandwidth that Cogent is... ;) Travis Microserv George Rogato wrote: Kinda high If you are lucky and you have access to fiber consider this Cogent, if you buy a GigE port and commit to 200 megs, you can have it for $5.00 per meg, or minimum of $1,000.00 per month and that comes with a whopping 200 megs, if you need to exceed 200 megs, it's just $5.00 per meg. If you get to $4,000 per month usage, then the price drops to $4.00 per meg. George Blair Davis wrote: Some simple numbers... $1700/month for 10Mbits. Much better than the $600 per 1.54Mbit I was paying out here. 1Mbit per Netflix or IPTV user. $170 cost of bandwidth per user. Users out here are not going to pay that. Period. The problem, out in the rural areas at least, is not delivering the bandwidth, it is getting it at a reasonable cost. These apps use an order of magnitude more bandwidth than the standard web browsing and email apps we are used to. But the users don't and won't understand that. If you went to buy a new TV and it used an order of magnitude more power to run it, your electric bill would soon show you the error of your ways. The only real solution to this problem is to move to per bit pricing. That way, users will see the cost of what they are doing and adjust their usage to what they are willing to pay for. Netflix, IPTV and other apps like them simply shift the their cost of doing business to us. Unless we either refuse to support these apps, or begin billing our users for them, it will kill us. The cable and dsl providers are starting to figure this out. Blair Tom DeReggi wrote: Why is the wireless world happy with being 10 years behind the wired world? Depends who you are referring by stating "wireless world". The WISP providers are surely NOT "happy" with that. They are just realistic about what they have available. And they are creative enough to understand that there are still markets willing to deal with that, because WISPs have other things to offer of equal or greater value, to creat a WISP market. I'm also not sure the public is "happy" with that. I haven't heard one public advocate at Broadband public meetings advocating "Please give money to wireless companies so we can have slower service". Wireless will be a part of Stimulus grants because... We can argue we'll get you service sooner, and we'll stretch the dollar further to serve more areas and people, so less people get left without being served, and more people get better service than they currently have. In the long run, with Wireless, consumers will have to compromise for less, in exchange for the instant gratification that can be gained today. WISPs deal with it because comparatively they are either broke, lazy, or impatient, in order to meet demand. Or I should say, don't want to end up broke. I'm not meaning to be derogatory in using those terms. What I mean is... Sure we'd all like to lay fiber. We just don't want to wait 20 years for an ROI (impatient :-). We don't have millions and billions of Finance capabilty upfront (broke :-). We don't want to spend years trying to get permits and negotiating easements with entities that care less about advancing our cause quickly (lazy :-). The truth is Monopolies are willing to do all these things. But they also grudgingly backout of their committments and delay as long as possible, because honestly they don't want to do it either, and are even more lazy, and clearly have all the time in the world, without competition forcing them to work harder. The truth is, Wireless providers DO NEED faster equipment. And the Truth is, we really aren't "lazy". (I was just kidding before :-) So WiMax vendors, Make us faster equipment!!! That we can Afford today!!! There is a lot of grant money comming up this year. Here is your chance for volume orders, from the WISP market. Give us a reason to stay wireless providers and not to become a fiber provider. Backhaul transport providers are doing their part. But I think last mile manufacturers still have to do a better job. But more importantly give grant Decission makers a reason to favor wireless. Give them speeds that public advocates will be excited about. And give us price points that will let us do microcells to accomplish top penetration. Wimax isn;t compet
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
I'm not asking for a wireless solution that does 60 megs to each customer, but I am asking for one that does more than the 2 vendors and other WISPs want. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "Marlon K. Schafer" Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 9:53 PM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > How do you want to count that Mike? > > Speed alone isn't adequate. If speed alone made a good purchase we'd all > be > driving ZR1 corvettes and Rouch Mustangs etc. > > Figure in cost per subscriber. > > Compute what people REALLY do with their internet not just how fast they > can > do it etc. > > Wireless is the PERFECT technology for a lot of customers. > > And don't keep shooting yourself in the foot. FIOS is also no good > because > you and I won't ever be able to install enough of it to make the kind of > living that wireless can give us. > > If it were for wired solutions only none of us would have the phone > services > we have now (good landline and cell phone). Many would also not have fast > internet connections. > > Don't go getting tunnel vision. > > marlon > > - Original Message - > From: "Mike Hammett" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 10:57 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > >>2 megs is yesterday's news. >> >> U-Verse is 18/1.5 >> FiOS is 50/20 >> Charter has 60/5 >> Comcast has 50/10 >> >> 2 megs is 36 times faster than 56k. Charter is 30 times faster than >> that. >> >> Why is the wireless world happy with being 10 years behind the wired >> world? >> >> >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> >> -- >> From: "Kevin Suitor" >> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 10:42 AM >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >>> We have customers worldwide who operate sectors typically with hundreds >>> of residential clients with 2 Mbps downlink / 256 or 512 kbps uplink and >>> some with who run entry level service (by NA standards) of 384 kbps >>> downlink / 128 kbps uplink that have an average of 250 clients per >>> sector with 6 sectors per BTS in an urban market. >>> >>> The WiMAX MAC is much more sophisticated than other MACs used in >>> wireless networking. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> Kevin >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >>> Behalf Of Mike Hammett >>> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:20 PM >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>> More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users on a >>> WiMAX >>> AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. >>> >>> >>> - >>> Mike Hammett >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>> http://www.ics-il.com >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> From: "Jeff Booher" >>> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM >>> To: "'WISPA General List'" >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>>> It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base >>>> station, >>>> that only supports 30 subscribers. >>>> >>>> - >>>> >>>> Jeff >>>> >>>> >>>> -Original Message- >>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >>> On >>>> Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM >>>> To: WISPA General List >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>> >>>> I'm certainly interested in ptmp. >>>> >>>> The Tranzeo gear is the same as Aperto isn't it? >>>> marlon >>>> >>>> - Original Message - >>>> From: "Gino Villarini" >>>> To: "WISPA General List" >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>> >>>&
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
20 MHz works now, why wouldn't it work later? Because the international markets where WiMAX was designed for don't have that sort of capacity. 10 MHz doesn't add that much distance over 20 MHz in other systems. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "Jeff Booher" Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 5:11 PM To: "'WISPA General List'" Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > I think it was clarified earlier that with a wider channel you get a much > greater reduction in effective range as well as increasing the required > CINR > to achieve maximum modulation. So while it could be made ( and I know of > one > company that did make a 20mhz channel wide wimax "D" product ) the > question > is the logic of making it. Now with 802.16e, you can see more throughput, > but its in the downlink, not the uplink. Bottom line is- No one is going > to > make a 40mhz wimax product, because its going to work @ peak modulation > for > like, maybe a mile or 2? > > - > > Jeff > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Mike Hammett > Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 12:09 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > If I don't expect it, why will the manufacturers make it? > > They seem to be happy to court the guy offering 1 megabit out of a $8k > radio > when anything made in the past 8 years could do the same thing. > > Do I expect to take Joe mainstream away from Comcast? No. Do I want to > be > seen as the dialup to their superhighway? Definitely not. > > I plan to switch to usage based billing, but I also want a system that > will > supply the demand. > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > -- > From: "3-dB Networks" > Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 2:01 PM > To: "'WISPA General List'" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > >> Well the Canopy 430 series is going to do 42Mbps... but even then how >> well >> is that going to work... considering your clients are going to have to be >> within 2 miles. >> >> I don't think you should have a realistic expectation that wireless (in a >> point to multipoint environment) is going to match the "next generation" >> demand. You can pray and hope... but I think in many ways the laws of >> physics are going to prevent wireless from competing with DSL/Cable... >> and >> god forbid, FTTH. >> >> Anyways... as has also been mentioned on this list... I'd expect in 5 >> years >> most service providers are going to charge by usage... so stream that 5mb >> movie all you want for three hours... but you're going to pay me for it. >> >> Daniel White >> 3-dB Networks >> http://www.3dbnetworks.com >> >> >>>-Original Message- >>>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >>>Behalf Of Mike Hammett >>>Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 12:56 PM >>>To: WISPA General List >>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>>Others on the list have mentioned the exponential increase in video use. >>>Those are multi megabit streams ran for hours on end. I believe someone >>>reported that NetFlix peaked at 5 megabits. Why would I deploy gear >>>that >>>couldn't handle these next generation services? >>> >>> >>>- >>>Mike Hammett >>>Intelligent Computing Solutions >>>http://www.ics-il.com >>> >>> >>> >>>-- >>>From: "3-dB Networks" >>>Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:13 PM >>>To: "'WISPA General List'" >>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>>> Because speed isn't everything. >>>> >>>> Mesa went head to head with Cable and DSL for a long time... offering >>>> packages of 7Mb this or that. Our highest package was 2.5Mb/1Mb. Yet >>>we >>>> still did a very respectful job, because we offered the best customer >>>> service around, and people liked using a local company. >>>> >>>> I would challenge... is why does anyone need more than 2Mb at home? I >>>> have >>>> a 15Mb Business
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Once your users figure out they can watch their favorite shows or movies online, your tune will change. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Travis Johnson Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 2:45 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? Because I can service where NONE of those other services exist... and I have for 10+ years. Residential users don't need more than 1-2Mbps. Our 512k package is FASTER than the 3Mbps CableOne service in our area (as tested by ZD Lab's benchmark program). Travis Microserv Mike Hammett wrote: 2 megs is yesterday's news. U-Verse is 18/1.5 FiOS is 50/20 Charter has 60/5 Comcast has 50/10 2 megs is 36 times faster than 56k. Charter is 30 times faster than that. Why is the wireless world happy with being 10 years behind the wired world? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "Kevin Suitor" Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 10:42 AM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? We have customers worldwide who operate sectors typically with hundreds of residential clients with 2 Mbps downlink / 256 or 512 kbps uplink and some with who run entry level service (by NA standards) of 384 kbps downlink / 128 kbps uplink that have an average of 250 clients per sector with 6 sectors per BTS in an urban market. The WiMAX MAC is much more sophisticated than other MACs used in wireless networking. Best Regards, Kevin -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users on a WiMAX AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "Jeff Booher" Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM To: "'WISPA General List'" Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base station, that only supports 30 subscribers. - Jeff -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? I'm certainly interested in ptmp. The Tranzeo gear is the same as Aperto isn't it? marlon - Original Message - From: "Gino Villarini" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? Ligowave its ptp in 3.65... Might wanna look at tranzeo for 3.65 ptmp Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Leon Zetekoff Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? Hi Marlon...I'd look at the Ligowave stuff similar in principle to the UBNT stuff but I think much better. That's what I'd do today. Take care leon Marlon K. Schafer wrote: I'm looking into this too. So far I can't find a solution for rural towers. A 3 sector install at $20k? Not to service the 20 people that will be able to even see that tower Anyone have any better ideas? marlon - Original Message - From: "Gino Villarini" To: "Motorola Canopy User Group" ; "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:55 AM Subject: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? Fellow operators: Any updates on your experienes with 3.65 gear? PMP and PTP? Any updates on experiences with: Redline, Aperto, Tranzeo, Vecima, Alvarion, Ligowave, Solectek, Airspan ??? Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 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
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
, and clearly have all the time in the world, without competition forcing them to work harder. The truth is, Wireless providers DO NEED faster equipment. And the Truth is, we really aren't "lazy". (I was just kidding before :-) So WiMax vendors, Make us faster equipment!!! That we can Afford today!!! There is a lot of grant money comming up this year. Here is your chance for volume orders, from the WISP market. Give us a reason to stay wireless providers and not to become a fiber provider. Backhaul transport providers are doing their part. But I think last mile manufacturers still have to do a better job. But more importantly give grant Decission makers a reason to favor wireless. Give them speeds that public advocates will be excited about. And give us price points that will let us do microcells to accomplish top penetration. Wimax isn;t competing against wifi anymore, they are competing against fiber. I admit, Its a tall order to fill. But I think clever innovators should be able to fill it. $7 billion is not a lot to come anywhere close to helping "All" Americans get next generation broadband. But $7 billion is a hech of a lot of money to inject into an ISP manufacturer industry. Lets just say $1 billion of it would go to Wireless infrastructure. Thats a lot of gear. Lets start getting creative with those volume order low price offers? How low can you go to get a peice of that $billion? Manufacturers, Let us know! The industry is writing their grant proposals now. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Kevin Suitor" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 3:23 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? Folks, I seem to have too much time on my hands since I'm on vacation. This thread prompted me to put a quick back of the napkin ROI analysis together to see which service options I'd want to be pushing on the market. What I did was review Bell Canada's service offer - why, because they offer Wireless, DSL & Fiber based Internet services in competition to Rogers Cable and Cogeco Cable (ON) and Videotron and Cogeco Cable(Qc) along with a variety of WISPs, satellite providers, in other words the entire spectrum of competition. As many of you may know Canada ranks in the top 10 worldwide for broadband penetration according to the latest OECD rankings with 23.8% BB penetration, the United States ranked 15th with 19.6% penetration. I opted not to include their wireless offer in the model. For the record their 512/512 Portable Internet service using an AC powered indoor CPE as the terminal device selling for $17.95/month; they offer a 2000/800 Rural service with either indoor or outdoor CPE beginning at $40/month; and a 3000/1000 Portable using the same indoor CPE as in the first offer. All CPE are sold at $99 to the customer. What I've done is outline the UL/DL speeds, cost per month, and a sliding scale of oversubscription rates (actual rate used by Bell seems to be between 20 and 40 based upon historical data depending on take-up rate in an area. This then generates a kbps / subscriber figure which was then divided into the capacity per sector (I'm using the average real world sector capacity from our worldwide base of 7 MHz RedMAX customers as reported by our Redline Management Suite application that we use to monitor production networks under a professional services agreement). I then divided this by the avg kbps/client to calculate the maximum subscribers per sector. I then took the peak subs multiplied by monthly ARPU to calculate the monthly and annual peak revenue stream per sector. The required CAPEX per sector was calculated based upon a sector controller, shared common costs (GPS, UPS, tower climb, and other site acquisition costs - WW avg.) and the cost of the number of CPE required by the peak subscriber calculation. The ROI in months is the CAPEX divided by the monthly ARPU. I've highlighted the sweet spot avg 18 month ROI lines in each model that indicates with between 19 and 229 subscribers, depending upon the SLA you'd be able to achieve and ROI acceptable to almost any financier using WiMAX. Cheers! Kevin NOTE: Modeled upon Bell Canada's Internet Service offer when using a WiMAX BTS to deliver the stated SLAs (all are best effort, residential services on a 7 MHz channel with mix of LOS and NLOS customers): Monthly Max Subs per Sector Monthly ARPU / Annual ARPU / Required CAPEX / ROI ARPU kbps Down kbps Up Total kbps Oversubscription kbps Required/Sub 16000 loaded sector loaded sector loaded sector (months) $17.95 Essential 500 500 1000 40 25 640 $ 11,488.00 $ 137,856.00 $ 300,750 26.17949 $27.95 Essential+ 2000 800 2800 40 70 229 $6,388.57 $ 76,662.86 $ 115,607 18.09593 $37.95
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
ot of gear. Lets start getting creative with those volume order low price offers? How low can you go to get a peice of that $billion? Manufacturers, Let us know! The industry is writing their grant proposals now. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Kevin Suitor" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 3:23 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? Folks, I seem to have too much time on my hands since I'm on vacation. This thread prompted me to put a quick back of the napkin ROI analysis together to see which service options I'd want to be pushing on the market. What I did was review Bell Canada's service offer - why, because they offer Wireless, DSL & Fiber based Internet services in competition to Rogers Cable and Cogeco Cable (ON) and Videotron and Cogeco Cable(Qc) along with a variety of WISPs, satellite providers, in other words the entire spectrum of competition. As many of you may know Canada ranks in the top 10 worldwide for broadband penetration according to the latest OECD rankings with 23.8% BB penetration, the United States ranked 15th with 19.6% penetration. I opted not to include their wireless offer in the model. For the record their 512/512 Portable Internet service using an AC powered indoor CPE as the terminal device selling for $17.95/month; they offer a 2000/800 Rural service with either indoor or outdoor CPE beginning at $40/month; and a 3000/1000 Portable using the same indoor CPE as in the first offer. All CPE are sold at $99 to the customer. What I've done is outline the UL/DL speeds, cost per month, and a sliding scale of oversubscription rates (actual rate used by Bell seems to be between 20 and 40 based upon historical data depending on take-up rate in an area. This then generates a kbps / subscriber figure which was then divided into the capacity per sector (I'm using the average real world sector capacity from our worldwide base of 7 MHz RedMAX customers as reported by our Redline Management Suite application that we use to monitor production networks under a professional services agreement). I then divided this by the avg kbps/client to calculate the maximum subscribers per sector. I then took the peak subs multiplied by monthly ARPU to calculate the monthly and annual peak revenue stream per sector. The required CAPEX per sector was calculated based upon a sector controller, shared common costs (GPS, UPS, tower climb, and other site acquisition costs - WW avg.) and the cost of the number of CPE required by the peak subscriber calculation. The ROI in months is the CAPEX divided by the monthly ARPU. I've highlighted the sweet spot avg 18 month ROI lines in each model that indicates with between 19 and 229 subscribers, depending upon the SLA you'd be able to achieve and ROI acceptable to almost any financier using WiMAX. Cheers! Kevin NOTE: Modeled upon Bell Canada's Internet Service offer when using a WiMAX BTS to deliver the stated SLAs (all are best effort, residential services on a 7 MHz channel with mix of LOS and NLOS customers): Monthly Max Subs per Sector Monthly ARPU / Annual ARPU / Required CAPEX / ROI ARPU kbps Down kbps Up Total kbps Oversubscription kbps Required/Sub 16000 loaded sector loaded sector loaded sector (months) $17.95 Essential 500 500 1000 40 25 640 $ 11,488.00 $ 137,856.00 $ 300,750 26.17949 $27.95 Essential+ 2000 800 2800 40 70 229 $6,388.57 $ 76,662.86 $ 115,607 18.09593 $37.95 Performance 7000 1000 8000 40 200 80 $3,036.00 $ 36,432.00 $ 48,750 16.05731 $42.95 MAX10 1 1000 11000 40 275 58 $2,498.91 $ 29,986.91 $ 38,932 15.57953 $72.95 MAX16 16000 1000 17000 40 425 38 $2,746.35 $ 32,956.24 $ 29,691 10.81113 Monthly Max Subs per Sector Monthly ARPU / Annual ARPU / Required CAPEX / ROI ARPU kbps Down kbps Up Total kbps Oversubscription kbps Required/Sub 16000 loaded sector loaded sector loaded sector (months) $17.95 Essential 500 500 1000 30 33 480 $8,616.00 $ 103,392.00 $ 228,750 26.54944 $27.95 Essential+ 2000 800 2800 30 93 171 $4,791.43 $ 57,497.14 $ 89,893 18.76118 $37.95 Performance 7000 1000 8000 30 267 60 $2,277.00 $ 27,324.00 $ 39,750 17.45718 $42.95 MAX10 1 1000 11000 30 367 44 $1,874.18 $ 22,490.18 $ 32,386 17.28027 $72.95 MAX16 16000 1000 17000 30 567 28 $2,059.76 $ 24,717.18 $ 25,456 12.35864 Monthly Max Subs per Sector Monthly ARPU / Annual ARPU / Required CAPEX / ROI ARPU kbps Down kbps Up Total kbps Oversubscription kbps Required/Sub 16000 loaded sector loaded sector loaded sector (months) $17.95 Essential 500 500 1000 20 50 320 $5,744.00 $ 68,928.00 $ 156,750 27.28935 $27.95 Essential+ 2000 800
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
those terms. What I mean is... >>>> >>>> Sure we'd all like to lay fiber. We just don't want to wait 20 years for >>>> an >>>> ROI (impatient :-). We don't have millions and billions of Finance >>>> capabilty >>>> upfront (broke :-). >>>> We don't want to spend years trying to get permits and negotiating >>>> easements >>>> with entities that care less about advancing our cause quickly (lazy :-). >>>> The truth is Monopolies are willing to do all these things. But they also >>>> grudgingly backout of their committments and delay as long as possible, >>>> because honestly they don't want to do it either, and are even more lazy, >>>> and clearly have all the time in the world, without competition forcing >>>> them >>>> to work harder. >>>> >>>> The truth is, Wireless providers DO NEED faster equipment. And the Truth >>>> is, we really aren't "lazy". (I was just kidding before :-) >>>> >>>> So WiMax vendors, Make us faster equipment!!! That we can Afford >>>> today!!! >>>> >>>> There is a lot of grant money comming up this year. Here is your chance >>>> for >>>> volume orders, from the WISP market. Give us a reason to stay wireless >>>> providers and not to become a fiber provider. Backhaul transport providers >>>> are doing their part. But I think last mile manufacturers still have to do >>>> a >>>> better job. But more importantly give grant Decission makers a reason to >>>> favor wireless. Give them speeds that public advocates will be excited >>>> about. And give us price points that will let us do microcells to >>>> accomplish >>>> top penetration. Wimax isn;t competing against wifi anymore, they are >>>> competing against fiber. I admit, Its a tall order to fill. But I think >>>> clever innovators should be able to fill it. >>>> >>>> $7 billion is not a lot to come anywhere close to helping "All" Americans >>>> get next generation broadband. But $7 billion is a hech of a lot of money >>>> to inject into an ISP manufacturer industry. Lets just say $1 billion of >>>> it >>>> would go to Wireless infrastructure. Thats a lot of gear. Lets start >>>> getting creative with those volume order low price offers? How low can you >>>> go to get a peice of that $billion? >>>> >>>> Manufacturers, Let us know! The industry is writing their grant proposals >>>> now. >>>> >>>> Tom DeReggi >>>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >>>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >>>> >>>> >>>> - Original Message - >>>> From: "Kevin Suitor" >>>> To: "WISPA General List" >>>> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 3:23 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Folks, >>>>> >>>>> I seem to have too much time on my hands since I'm on vacation. This >>>>> thread prompted me to put a quick back of the napkin ROI analysis >>>>> together to see which service options I'd want to be pushing on the >>>>> market. >>>>> >>>>> What I did was review Bell Canada's service offer - why, because they >>>>> offer Wireless, DSL & Fiber based Internet services in competition to >>>>> Rogers Cable and Cogeco Cable (ON) and Videotron and Cogeco Cable(Qc) >>>>> along with a variety of WISPs, satellite providers, in other words the >>>>> entire spectrum of competition. As many of you may know Canada ranks in >>>>> the top 10 worldwide for broadband penetration according to the latest >>>>> OECD rankings with 23.8% BB penetration, the United States ranked 15th >>>>> with 19.6% penetration. >>>>> >>>>> I opted not to include their wireless offer in the model. For the >>>>> record their 512/512 Portable Internet service using an AC powered >>>>> indoor CPE as the terminal device selling for $17.95/month; they offer a >>>>> 2000/800 Rural service with either indoor or outdoor CPE beginning at >>>>> $40/month; and a 3000/1000 Portable using the same indoor CPE as in t
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
lion of it would go to Wireless infrastructure. Thats a lot of gear. Lets start getting creative with those volume order low price offers? How low can you go to get a peice of that $billion? Manufacturers, Let us know! The industry is writing their grant proposals now. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband ----- Original Message - From: "Kevin Suitor" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 3:23 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? Folks, I seem to have too much time on my hands since I'm on vacation. This thread prompted me to put a quick back of the napkin ROI analysis together to see which service options I'd want to be pushing on the market. What I did was review Bell Canada's service offer - why, because they offer Wireless, DSL & Fiber based Internet services in competition to Rogers Cable and Cogeco Cable (ON) and Videotron and Cogeco Cable(Qc) along with a variety of WISPs, satellite providers, in other words the entire spectrum of competition. As many of you may know Canada ranks in the top 10 worldwide for broadband penetration according to the latest OECD rankings with 23.8% BB penetration, the United States ranked 15th with 19.6% penetration. I opted not to include their wireless offer in the model. For the record their 512/512 Portable Internet service using an AC powered indoor CPE as the terminal device selling for $17.95/month; they offer a 2000/800 Rural service with either indoor or outdoor CPE beginning at $40/month; and a 3000/1000 Portable using the same indoor CPE as in the first offer. All CPE are sold at $99 to the customer. What I've done is outline the UL/DL speeds, cost per month, and a sliding scale of oversubscription rates (actual rate used by Bell seems to be between 20 and 40 based upon historical data depending on take-up rate in an area. This then generates a kbps / subscriber figure which was then divided into the capacity per sector (I'm using the average real world sector capacity from our worldwide base of 7 MHz RedMAX customers as reported by our Redline Management Suite application that we use to monitor production networks under a professional services agreement). I then divided this by the avg kbps/client to calculate the maximum subscribers per sector. I then took the peak subs multiplied by monthly ARPU to calculate the monthly and annual peak revenue stream per sector. The required CAPEX per sector was calculated based upon a sector controller, shared common costs (GPS, UPS, tower climb, and other site acquisition costs - WW avg.) and the cost of the number of CPE required by the peak subscriber calculation. The ROI in months is the CAPEX divided by the monthly ARPU. I've highlighted the sweet spot avg 18 month ROI lines in each model that indicates with between 19 and 229 subscribers, depending upon the SLA you'd be able to achieve and ROI acceptable to almost any financier using WiMAX. Cheers! Kevin NOTE: Modeled upon Bell Canada's Internet Service offer when using a WiMAX BTS to deliver the stated SLAs (all are best effort, residential services on a 7 MHz channel with mix of LOS and NLOS customers): Monthly Max Subs per Sector Monthly ARPU / Annual ARPU / Required CAPEX / ROI ARPU kbps Down kbps Up Total kbps Oversubscription kbps Required/Sub 16000 loaded sector loaded sector loaded sector (months) $17.95 Essential 500 500 1000 40 25 640 $ 11,488.00 $ 137,856.00 $ 300,750 26.17949 $27.95 Essential+ 2000 800 2800 40 70 229 $6,388.57 $ 76,662.86 $ 115,607 18.09593 $37.95 Performance 7000 1000 8000 40 200 80 $3,036.00 $ 36,432.00 $ 48,750 16.05731 $42.95 MAX10 1 1000 11000 40 275 58 $2,498.91 $ 29,986.91 $ 38,932 15.57953 $72.95 MAX16 16000 1000 17000 40 425 38 $2,746.35 $ 32,956.24 $ 29,691 10.81113 Monthly Max Subs per Sector Monthly ARPU / Annual ARPU / Required CAPEX / ROI ARPU kbps Down kbps Up Total kbps Oversubscription kbps Required/Sub 16000 loaded sector loaded sector loaded sector (months) $17.95 Essential 500 500 1000 30 33 480 $8,616.00 $ 103,392.00 $ 228,750 26.54944 $27.95 Essential+ 2000 800 2800 30 93 171 $4,791.43 $ 57,497.14 $ 89,893 18.76118 $37.95 Performance 7000 1000 8000 30 267 60 $2,277.00 $ 27,324.00 $ 39,750 17.45718 $42.95 MAX10 1 1000 11000 30 367 44 $1,874.18 $ 22,490.18 $ 32,386 17.28027 $72.95 MAX16 16000 1000 17000 30 567 28 $2,059.76 $ 24,717.18 $ 25,456 12.35864 Monthly Max Subs per Sector Monthly ARPU / Annual ARPU / Required CAPEX / ROI ARPU kbps Down kbps Up Total kbps Oversubscription kbps Required/Sub 16000 loaded sector loaded sector loaded sector (months) $17.95 Essential 500 500 1000 20 50 320 $5,744.00 $
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
How do you want to count that Mike? Speed alone isn't adequate. If speed alone made a good purchase we'd all be driving ZR1 corvettes and Rouch Mustangs etc. Figure in cost per subscriber. Compute what people REALLY do with their internet not just how fast they can do it etc. Wireless is the PERFECT technology for a lot of customers. And don't keep shooting yourself in the foot. FIOS is also no good because you and I won't ever be able to install enough of it to make the kind of living that wireless can give us. If it were for wired solutions only none of us would have the phone services we have now (good landline and cell phone). Many would also not have fast internet connections. Don't go getting tunnel vision. marlon - Original Message - From: "Mike Hammett" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 10:57 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >2 megs is yesterday's news. > > U-Verse is 18/1.5 > FiOS is 50/20 > Charter has 60/5 > Comcast has 50/10 > > 2 megs is 36 times faster than 56k. Charter is 30 times faster than that. > > Why is the wireless world happy with being 10 years behind the wired > world? > > > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > ------ > From: "Kevin Suitor" > Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 10:42 AM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > >> We have customers worldwide who operate sectors typically with hundreds >> of residential clients with 2 Mbps downlink / 256 or 512 kbps uplink and >> some with who run entry level service (by NA standards) of 384 kbps >> downlink / 128 kbps uplink that have an average of 250 clients per >> sector with 6 sectors per BTS in an urban market. >> >> The WiMAX MAC is much more sophisticated than other MACs used in >> wireless networking. >> >> Best Regards, >> Kevin >> >> -----Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Mike Hammett >> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:20 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users on a >> WiMAX >> AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> >> -- >> From: "Jeff Booher" >> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM >> To: "'WISPA General List'" >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >>> It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base >>> station, >>> that only supports 30 subscribers. >>> >>> - >>> >>> Jeff >>> >>> >>> -Original Message----- >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >> On >>> Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>> I'm certainly interested in ptmp. >>> >>> The Tranzeo gear is the same as Aperto isn't it? >>> marlon >>> >>> - Original Message ----- >>> From: "Gino Villarini" >>> To: "WISPA General List" >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 PM >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>> >>>> Ligowave its ptp in 3.65... >>>> >>>> Might wanna look at tranzeo for 3.65 ptmp >>>> >>>> >>>> Gino A. Villarini >>>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>>> >>>> -Original Message- >>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >> On >>>> Behalf Of Leon Zetekoff >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:32 PM >>>> To: WISPA General List >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>> >>>> Hi Marlon...I'd look at the Ligowave stuff similar in principle to >> the >>>> UBNT stuff but I think much better. That's what I'd do today. >>>
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
to accomplish >> top penetration. Wimax isn;t competing against wifi anymore, they are >> competing against fiber. I admit, Its a tall order to fill. But I think >> clever innovators should be able to fill it. >> >> $7 billion is not a lot to come anywhere close to helping "All" Americans >> get next generation broadband. But $7 billion is a hech of a lot of money >> to inject into an ISP manufacturer industry. Lets just say $1 billion of it >> would go to Wireless infrastructure. Thats a lot of gear. Lets start >> getting creative with those volume order low price offers? How low can you >> go to get a peice of that $billion? >> >> Manufacturers, Let us know! The industry is writing their grant proposals >> now. >> >> Tom DeReggi >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Kevin Suitor" >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 3:23 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> >> >>> Folks, >>> >>> I seem to have too much time on my hands since I'm on vacation. This >>> thread prompted me to put a quick back of the napkin ROI analysis >>> together to see which service options I'd want to be pushing on the >>> market. >>> >>> What I did was review Bell Canada's service offer - why, because they >>> offer Wireless, DSL & Fiber based Internet services in competition to >>> Rogers Cable and Cogeco Cable (ON) and Videotron and Cogeco Cable(Qc) >>> along with a variety of WISPs, satellite providers, in other words the >>> entire spectrum of competition. As many of you may know Canada ranks in >>> the top 10 worldwide for broadband penetration according to the latest >>> OECD rankings with 23.8% BB penetration, the United States ranked 15th >>> with 19.6% penetration. >>> >>> I opted not to include their wireless offer in the model. For the >>> record their 512/512 Portable Internet service using an AC powered >>> indoor CPE as the terminal device selling for $17.95/month; they offer a >>> 2000/800 Rural service with either indoor or outdoor CPE beginning at >>> $40/month; and a 3000/1000 Portable using the same indoor CPE as in the >>> first offer. All CPE are sold at $99 to the customer. >>> >>> What I've done is outline the UL/DL speeds, cost per month, and a >>> sliding scale of oversubscription rates (actual rate used by Bell seems >>> to be between 20 and 40 based upon historical data depending on take-up >>> rate in an area. This then generates a kbps / subscriber figure which >>> was then divided into the capacity per sector (I'm using the average >>> real world sector capacity from our worldwide base of 7 MHz RedMAX >>> customers as reported by our Redline Management Suite application that >>> we use to monitor production networks under a professional services >>> agreement). I then divided this by the avg kbps/client to calculate the >>> maximum subscribers per sector. I then took the peak subs multiplied by >>> monthly ARPU to calculate the monthly and annual peak revenue stream per >>> sector. The required CAPEX per sector was calculated based upon a >>> sector controller, shared common costs (GPS, UPS, tower climb, and other >>> site acquisition costs - WW avg.) and the cost of the number of CPE >>> required by the peak subscriber calculation. The ROI in months is the >>> CAPEX divided by the monthly ARPU. >>> >>> I've highlighted the sweet spot avg 18 month ROI lines in each model >>> that indicates with between 19 and 229 subscribers, depending upon the >>> SLA you'd be able to achieve and ROI acceptable to almost any financier >>> using WiMAX. >>> >>> Cheers! >>> Kevin >>> >>> >>> NOTE: Modeled upon Bell Canada's Internet Service offer when using a >>> WiMAX BTS to deliver the stated SLAs (all are best effort, residential >>> services on a 7 MHz channel with mix of LOS and NLOS customers): >>> >>> Monthly Max Subs per >>> Sector Monthly ARPU / Annual ARPU / Required CAPEX / ROI >>> ARPU kbps Down kbps Up Total kbps Oversubscription >>> kbps Required/Sub 16000 loaded sector loaded sector loaded >>> sector (months) >>> $17.95 Essential 500 500 1000 40 25 >>> 640 $ 11,488.00 $ 137,856.00 $ >>
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Um. Amen ! -Original Message- From: Blair Davis Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 8:11 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? Some simple numbers... $1700/month for 10Mbits. Much better than the $600 per 1.54Mbit I was paying out here. 1Mbit per Netflix or IPTV user. $170 cost of bandwidth per user. Users out here are not going to pay that. Period. The problem, out in the rural areas at least, is not delivering the bandwidth, it is getting it at a reasonable cost. These apps use an order of magnitude more bandwidth than the standard web browsing and email apps we are used to. But the users don't and won't understand that. If you went to buy a new TV and it used an order of magnitude more power to run it, your electric bill would soon show you the error of your ways. The only real solution to this problem is to move to per bit pricing. That way, users will see the cost of what they are doing and adjust their usage to what they are willing to pay for. Netflix, IPTV and other apps like them simply shift the their cost of doing business to us. Unless we either refuse to support these apps, or begin billing our users for them, it will kill us. The cable and dsl providers are starting to figure this out. Blair Tom DeReggi wrote: Why is the wireless world happy with being 10 years behind the wired world? Depends who you are referring by stating "wireless world". The WISP providers are surely NOT "happy" with that. They are just realistic about what they have available. And they are creative enough to understand that there are still markets willing to deal with that, because WISPs have other things to offer of equal or greater value, to creat a WISP market. I'm also not sure the public is "happy" with that. I haven't heard one public advocate at Broadband public meetings advocating "Please give money to wireless companies so we can have slower service". Wireless will be a part of Stimulus grants because... We can argue we'll get you service sooner, and we'll stretch the dollar further to serve more areas and people, so less people get left without being served, and more people get better service than they currently have. In the long run, with Wireless, consumers will have to compromise for less, in exchange for the instant gratification that can be gained today. WISPs deal with it because comparatively they are either broke, lazy, or impatient, in order to meet demand. Or I should say, don't want to end up broke. I'm not meaning to be derogatory in using those terms. What I mean is... Sure we'd all like to lay fiber. We just don't want to wait 20 years for an ROI (impatient :-). We don't have millions and billions of Finance capabilty upfront (broke :-). We don't want to spend years trying to get permits and negotiating easements with entities that care less about advancing our cause quickly (lazy :-). The truth is Monopolies are willing to do all these things. But they also grudgingly backout of their committments and delay as long as possible, because honestly they don't want to do it either, and are even more lazy, and clearly have all the time in the world, without competition forcing them to work harder. The truth is, Wireless providers DO NEED faster equipment. And the Truth is, we really aren't "lazy". (I was just kidding before :-) So WiMax vendors, Make us faster equipment!!! That we can Afford today!!! There is a lot of grant money comming up this year. Here is your chance for volume orders, from the WISP market. Give us a reason to stay wireless providers and not to become a fiber provider. Backhaul transport providers are doing their part. But I think last mile manufacturers still have to do a better job. But more importantly give grant Decission makers a reason to favor wireless. Give them speeds that public advocates will be excited about. And give us price points that will let us do microcells to accomplish top penetration. Wimax isn;t competing against wifi anymore, they are competing against fiber. I admit, Its a tall order to fill. But I think clever innovators should be able to fill it. $7 billion is not a lot to come anywhere close to helping "All" Americans get next generation broadband. But $7 billion is a hech of a lot of money to inject into an ISP manufacturer industry. Lets just say $1 billion of it would go to Wireless infrastructure. Thats a lot of gear. Lets start getting creative with those volume order low price offers? How low can you go to get a peice of that $billion? Manufacturers, Let us know! The industry is writing their grant proposals now. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband ----- Original Message - From: "Kevin Suitor" To: "WISPA General List" Sent
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Some simple numbers... $1700/month for 10Mbits. Much better than the $600 per 1.54Mbit I was paying out here. 1Mbit per Netflix or IPTV user. $170 cost of bandwidth per user. Users out here are not going to pay that. Period. The problem, out in the rural areas at least, is not delivering the bandwidth, it is getting it at a reasonable cost. These apps use an order of magnitude more bandwidth than the standard web browsing and email apps we are used to. But the users don't and won't understand that. If you went to buy a new TV and it used an order of magnitude more power to run it, your electric bill would soon show you the error of your ways. The only real solution to this problem is to move to per bit pricing. That way, users will see the cost of what they are doing and adjust their usage to what they are willing to pay for. Netflix, IPTV and other apps like them simply shift the their cost of doing business to us. Unless we either refuse to support these apps, or begin billing our users for them, it will kill us. The cable and dsl providers are starting to figure this out. Blair Tom DeReggi wrote: Why is the wireless world happy with being 10 years behind the wired world? Depends who you are referring by stating "wireless world". The WISP providers are surely NOT "happy" with that. They are just realistic about what they have available. And they are creative enough to understand that there are still markets willing to deal with that, because WISPs have other things to offer of equal or greater value, to creat a WISP market. I'm also not sure the public is "happy" with that. I haven't heard one public advocate at Broadband public meetings advocating "Please give money to wireless companies so we can have slower service". Wireless will be a part of Stimulus grants because... We can argue we'll get you service sooner, and we'll stretch the dollar further to serve more areas and people, so less people get left without being served, and more people get better service than they currently have. In the long run, with Wireless, consumers will have to compromise for less, in exchange for the instant gratification that can be gained today. WISPs deal with it because comparatively they are either broke, lazy, or impatient, in order to meet demand. Or I should say, don't want to end up broke. I'm not meaning to be derogatory in using those terms. What I mean is... Sure we'd all like to lay fiber. We just don't want to wait 20 years for an ROI (impatient :-). We don't have millions and billions of Finance capabilty upfront (broke :-). We don't want to spend years trying to get permits and negotiating easements with entities that care less about advancing our cause quickly (lazy :-). The truth is Monopolies are willing to do all these things. But they also grudgingly backout of their committments and delay as long as possible, because honestly they don't want to do it either, and are even more lazy, and clearly have all the time in the world, without competition forcing them to work harder. The truth is, Wireless providers DO NEED faster equipment. And the Truth is, we really aren't "lazy". (I was just kidding before :-) So WiMax vendors, Make us faster equipment!!! That we can Afford today!!! There is a lot of grant money comming up this year. Here is your chance for volume orders, from the WISP market. Give us a reason to stay wireless providers and not to become a fiber provider. Backhaul transport providers are doing their part. But I think last mile manufacturers still have to do a better job. But more importantly give grant Decission makers a reason to favor wireless. Give them speeds that public advocates will be excited about. And give us price points that will let us do microcells to accomplish top penetration. Wimax isn;t competing against wifi anymore, they are competing against fiber. I admit, Its a tall order to fill. But I think clever innovators should be able to fill it. $7 billion is not a lot to come anywhere close to helping "All" Americans get next generation broadband. But $7 billion is a hech of a lot of money to inject into an ISP manufacturer industry. Lets just say $1 billion of it would go to Wireless infrastructure. Thats a lot of gear. Lets start getting creative with those volume order low price offers? How low can you go to get a peice of that $billion? Manufacturers, Let us know! The industry is writing their grant proposals now. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband ----- Original Message - From: "Kevin Suitor" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 3:23 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? Folks, I seem to have too much time on my hands since I'm
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
I think it was clarified earlier that with a wider channel you get a much greater reduction in effective range as well as increasing the required CINR to achieve maximum modulation. So while it could be made ( and I know of one company that did make a 20mhz channel wide wimax "D" product ) the question is the logic of making it. Now with 802.16e, you can see more throughput, but its in the downlink, not the uplink. Bottom line is- No one is going to make a 40mhz wimax product, because its going to work @ peak modulation for like, maybe a mile or 2? - Jeff -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 12:09 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? If I don't expect it, why will the manufacturers make it? They seem to be happy to court the guy offering 1 megabit out of a $8k radio when anything made in the past 8 years could do the same thing. Do I expect to take Joe mainstream away from Comcast? No. Do I want to be seen as the dialup to their superhighway? Definitely not. I plan to switch to usage based billing, but I also want a system that will supply the demand. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "3-dB Networks" Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 2:01 PM To: "'WISPA General List'" Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > Well the Canopy 430 series is going to do 42Mbps... but even then how well > is that going to work... considering your clients are going to have to be > within 2 miles. > > I don't think you should have a realistic expectation that wireless (in a > point to multipoint environment) is going to match the "next generation" > demand. You can pray and hope... but I think in many ways the laws of > physics are going to prevent wireless from competing with DSL/Cable... and > god forbid, FTTH. > > Anyways... as has also been mentioned on this list... I'd expect in 5 > years > most service providers are going to charge by usage... so stream that 5mb > movie all you want for three hours... but you're going to pay me for it. > > Daniel White > 3-dB Networks > http://www.3dbnetworks.com > > >>-Original Message- >>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >>Behalf Of Mike Hammett >>Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 12:56 PM >>To: WISPA General List >>Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >>Others on the list have mentioned the exponential increase in video use. >>Those are multi megabit streams ran for hours on end. I believe someone >>reported that NetFlix peaked at 5 megabits. Why would I deploy gear >>that >>couldn't handle these next generation services? >> >> >>- >>Mike Hammett >>Intelligent Computing Solutions >>http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> >>-- >>From: "3-dB Networks" >>Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:13 PM >>To: "'WISPA General List'" >>Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >>> Because speed isn't everything. >>> >>> Mesa went head to head with Cable and DSL for a long time... offering >>> packages of 7Mb this or that. Our highest package was 2.5Mb/1Mb. Yet >>we >>> still did a very respectful job, because we offered the best customer >>> service around, and people liked using a local company. >>> >>> I would challenge... is why does anyone need more than 2Mb at home? I >>> have >>> a 15Mb Business Class Comcast connection at home... it burst to 30Mb. >>Yet >>> it doesn't feel any faster than a 2Mb connection to me. >>> >>> Now if I'm downloading files... :-) >>> >>> Daniel White >>> 3-dB Networks >>> http://www.3dbnetworks.com >>> >>> >>>>-Original Message- >>>>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >>On >>>>Behalf Of Mike Hammett >>>>Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 11:58 AM >>>>To: WISPA General List >>>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>> >>>>2 megs is yesterday's news. >>>> >>>>U-Verse is 18/1.5 >>>>FiOS is 50/20 >>>>Charter has 60/5 >>>>Comcast has 50/10 >>>> >>>>2 megs is 36 times faster than 56k. Charter is 30 times faster than >>>>that. >>>> >>>>Why is the wireless
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
>Why is the wireless world happy with being 10 years behind the wired >world? Depends who you are referring by stating "wireless world". The WISP providers are surely NOT "happy" with that. They are just realistic about what they have available. And they are creative enough to understand that there are still markets willing to deal with that, because WISPs have other things to offer of equal or greater value, to creat a WISP market. I'm also not sure the public is "happy" with that. I haven't heard one public advocate at Broadband public meetings advocating "Please give money to wireless companies so we can have slower service". Wireless will be a part of Stimulus grants because... We can argue we'll get you service sooner, and we'll stretch the dollar further to serve more areas and people, so less people get left without being served, and more people get better service than they currently have. In the long run, with Wireless, consumers will have to compromise for less, in exchange for the instant gratification that can be gained today. WISPs deal with it because comparatively they are either broke, lazy, or impatient, in order to meet demand. Or I should say, don't want to end up broke. I'm not meaning to be derogatory in using those terms. What I mean is... Sure we'd all like to lay fiber. We just don't want to wait 20 years for an ROI (impatient :-). We don't have millions and billions of Finance capabilty upfront (broke :-). We don't want to spend years trying to get permits and negotiating easements with entities that care less about advancing our cause quickly (lazy :-). The truth is Monopolies are willing to do all these things. But they also grudgingly backout of their committments and delay as long as possible, because honestly they don't want to do it either, and are even more lazy, and clearly have all the time in the world, without competition forcing them to work harder. The truth is, Wireless providers DO NEED faster equipment. And the Truth is, we really aren't "lazy". (I was just kidding before :-) So WiMax vendors, Make us faster equipment!!! That we can Afford today!!! There is a lot of grant money comming up this year. Here is your chance for volume orders, from the WISP market. Give us a reason to stay wireless providers and not to become a fiber provider. Backhaul transport providers are doing their part. But I think last mile manufacturers still have to do a better job. But more importantly give grant Decission makers a reason to favor wireless. Give them speeds that public advocates will be excited about. And give us price points that will let us do microcells to accomplish top penetration. Wimax isn;t competing against wifi anymore, they are competing against fiber. I admit, Its a tall order to fill. But I think clever innovators should be able to fill it. $7 billion is not a lot to come anywhere close to helping "All" Americans get next generation broadband. But $7 billion is a hech of a lot of money to inject into an ISP manufacturer industry. Lets just say $1 billion of it would go to Wireless infrastructure. Thats a lot of gear. Lets start getting creative with those volume order low price offers? How low can you go to get a peice of that $billion? Manufacturers, Let us know! The industry is writing their grant proposals now. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Kevin Suitor" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 3:23 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > Folks, > > I seem to have too much time on my hands since I'm on vacation. This > thread prompted me to put a quick back of the napkin ROI analysis > together to see which service options I'd want to be pushing on the > market. > > What I did was review Bell Canada's service offer - why, because they > offer Wireless, DSL & Fiber based Internet services in competition to > Rogers Cable and Cogeco Cable (ON) and Videotron and Cogeco Cable(Qc) > along with a variety of WISPs, satellite providers, in other words the > entire spectrum of competition. As many of you may know Canada ranks in > the top 10 worldwide for broadband penetration according to the latest > OECD rankings with 23.8% BB penetration, the United States ranked 15th > with 19.6% penetration. > > I opted not to include their wireless offer in the model. For the > record their 512/512 Portable Internet service using an AC powered > indoor CPE as the terminal device selling for $17.95/month; they offer a > 2000/800 Rural service with either indoor or outdoor CPE beginning at > $40/month; and a 3000/1000 Portable using the same indoor CPE as in the > first offer. Al
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
On Mar 20, 2009, at 3:50 PM, rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: > Mike Hammett and I both are watching huge amounts of investment > being poured > into WIMAX equipment that's designed to meet last year's bandwidth > model and > asking the same question.When are the WIMAX folks going to > realize that > we do not want to spread 18 mbit across 100 customers, we want to > spread > 36mbit across 100 customers. > I don't know any company investing huge amounts into WiMAX for last year's bandwidth model. For example, our WiMAX equipment is competing against NxDS1, which is this year's and next year's bandwidth model for every reasonably sized SMB. Go ahead and argue again that you don't sell to the same business or residential markets that those of us who have invested in WiMAX sell to. We don't want your market and we don't want the WiMAX vendors focusing on your market. We want them focusing on our market and we are putting our money where are mouth is ensuring the WiMAX vendors do focus on our market. The sum up the thread you want the radio vendors to make a product to enable your business model to thrive today and into the future. Whereas today's WiMAX operators have created a business model to thrive today and into the future based upon currently available products. -Matt 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] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
- Original Message - From: "Matt Liotta" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 7:53 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >I think you may be missing a couple of variables in the multivariable > equation that determines the actual throughput a client can achieve in > a given time slice. When comparing access systems one must understand > the differences between the capabilities provided by the systems and > their result on these variables. You harp on throughput when the > reality is that ISPs don't sell throughput; they sell capacity. The Hmmm... Where are we getting lost? Why can't we just take what is said at face value, for as simple as it was said? I don't really know about the other users on the list, but I, for one, DO understand the concepts of how to share a fixed data stream and why the 802.11 mac is so poorly suited for ISP use. Mike Hammett and I both are watching huge amounts of investment being poured into WIMAX equipment that's designed to meet last year's bandwidth model and asking the same question.When are the WIMAX folks going to realize that we do not want to spread 18 mbit across 100 customers, we want to spread 36mbit across 100 customers. This is because the "consumption per customer" continues to climb, and the oversubscription levels we USED to use for planning are headed to be far inadequate.It USED to be that the 6mbit from an 802.11b access point was enough during the peak use hours to keep 27 people happy - because nothing they did was latency and bandwidth sensitive. So the page took 1 second longer, nobody cared.Now, 12 of those 27 people want to watch a 1 to 3mbit HDTV stream, while the others do stuff. And no, putting up an AP to serve 100 people with 18 mbit isn't the answer. We need that AP to work just as gracefully as it does, but instead of using 7 mhz, it uses 21, and will be adequate for the day when 25% of our clients watch TV over IP, talk on the phone, AND play games and surf... While the rest let the email run 24/7 and listen to streaming music. So, while you're arguing semantics here, both Mike and I are looking at this saying... "Why invest heavily in equipment that is barely adequate for present?"My whole solar powered sites do not cost $2000 and that includes the batteries and solar panels and radios, too. Currently, we're still looking at putting in nothing but 5 ghz micropops because they can serve 10-20 people with adequate bandwidth for all, even in the apparent future. > throughput of any given flow is variable based on a variety variables > including RTT and congestion. Most applications that end users care > about are TCP based, which means TCP's congestion algorithm comes into > play most often. One important aspect of a TCP flow is slow start, > which causes flows initially to have throughput less than the capacity > of the transport layer. Considering that much of real world traffic > never has time to get up to full speed, the capacity is rarely full > utilized. However, when multiple flows operate on the same access > layer at the same time all slow starting you are able get more > efficient use of your capacity. Unfortunately, most end users simply > do not have enough flows operating at the same time lasting long > enough to fully utilize all of their capacity. The unused capacity is > what allows for oversubscription. In other words, by sharing the > capacity across a large enough number of end users you can get more > efficient utilization of the overall available capacity. > > Now the above may be nothing new to most of us, but how easily we > forget that we sell capacity and leverage our client's inability to > use all of that capacity because their throughput rarely achieves what > is available capacity wise. This means we need access systems that > very efficiently multiplex flows from an arbitrary number of end > users. It is not about getting more throughput than the overall > capacity of the system; it is about efficiently delivery the maximum > available throughput when the end user actually needs it. > > Your basic 802.11 wireless system does not efficiently share capacity > across multiple stations, which results in stranded capacity. Compare > this to a WiMAX system that is extremely efficient at sharing capacity > across all connected stations. No system can allow the aggregate > throughput of all stations to exceed the total capacity of the system, > which would violate the law of physics. Obviously. But that's EXACTLY what two people just said on this list. That they do. That's what I'm responding to. > > In the real world, end users can't use all of their capacity all of
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Because I can service where NONE of those other services exist... and I
have for 10+ years.
Residential users don't need more than 1-2Mbps. Our 512k package is
FASTER than the 3Mbps CableOne service in our area (as tested by ZD
Lab's benchmark program).
Travis
Microserv
Mike Hammett wrote:
2 megs is yesterday's news.
U-Verse is 18/1.5
FiOS is 50/20
Charter has 60/5
Comcast has 50/10
2 megs is 36 times faster than 56k. Charter is 30 times faster than that.
Why is the wireless world happy with being 10 years behind the wired world?
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
--
From: "Kevin Suitor"
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 10:42 AM
To: "WISPA General List"
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
We have customers worldwide who operate sectors typically with hundreds
of residential clients with 2 Mbps downlink / 256 or 512 kbps uplink and
some with who run entry level service (by NA standards) of 384 kbps
downlink / 128 kbps uplink that have an average of 250 clients per
sector with 6 sectors per BTS in an urban market.
The WiMAX MAC is much more sophisticated than other MACs used in
wireless networking.
Best Regards,
Kevin
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:20 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users on a
WiMAX
AP anyway... not enough bandwidth.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
--
From: "Jeff Booher"
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM
To: "'WISPA General List'"
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base
station,
that only supports 30 subscribers.
-
Jeff
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
I'm certainly interested in ptmp.
The Tranzeo gear is the same as Aperto isn't it?
marlon
- Original Message -
From: "Gino Villarini"
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Ligowave its ptp in 3.65...
Might wanna look at tranzeo for 3.65 ptmp
Gino A. Villarini
g...@aeronetpr.com
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
On
Behalf Of Leon Zetekoff
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:32 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Hi Marlon...I'd look at the Ligowave stuff similar in principle to
the
UBNT stuff but I think much better. That's what I'd do today.
Take care leon
Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
I'm looking into this too.
So far I can't find a solution for rural towers. A 3 sector install
at $20k? Not to service the 20 people that will be able to even see
that tower
Anyone have any better ideas?
marlon
- Original Message -
From: "Gino Villarini"
To: "Motorola Canopy User Group" ; "WISPA
General
List"
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:55 AM
Subject: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Fellow operators:
Any updates on your experienes with 3.65 gear? PMP and PTP?
Any updates on experiences with:
Redline, Aperto, Tranzeo, Vecima, Alvarion, Ligowave, Solectek,
Airspan ???
Gino A. Villarini
g...@aeronetpr.com
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Mike, I absolutely see where you are coming from. Internet usage is changing, and to keep up with it you have to offer higher throughput... at least at the base station/AP... to have a reasonable oversubscription rate. At the same time though I don't see how a vendor can create that magic 100Mb PtMP wireless product. Sure you could bond 4 15MHz Channels on the Canopy 400 series and come close... but do you have 60MHz of available spectrum per AP? I think what has to happen is to change the business model if you're in a region where you have to compete head to head with Cable/DSL. I don't see the wonder product coming anytime soon... and even if vendor X said it was coming... it would probably come to late as people are going to demand more and more. What is at fault is the as much as you can eat style of providing bandwidth... once that changes and becomes acceptable the gear out there today will be able to meet the demand I think. But until the big boys clamp down hard on usage... it's hard for a WISP to compete if your clamping down and they are not. Anyways... I think the equipment manufacturers are going to continue to push themselves to deliver that next best product... because if they don't someone else will... Daniel White 3-dB Networks http://www.3dbnetworks.com >-Original Message- >From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >Behalf Of Mike Hammett >Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:11 PM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > >Yes, service. If you can't service their desire to watch NetFlix, >they'll >leave. > >I'm glad a few of you see where I'm coming from while the rest of you >sit in >awe. > > >- >Mike Hammett >Intelligent Computing Solutions >http://www.ics-il.com > > > >------ >From: "3-dB Networks" >Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:37 PM >To: "'WISPA General List'" >Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > >> Well... I did but I didn't. >> >> You can have as big of a pipe into the world that you want. Heck our >> office >> has 45Mb symmetrical. But my downloads here are no faster at home >because >> of the limits on the servers your downloading from... and heck just >the >> internet in general. >> >> There is a point where no matter how fast your internet connection >is... >> it's not going to feel any faster. Your router will not have enough >> horsepower to handle it... or your computer won't. >> >> At the end of the day I think people demand service. I'm talking >about >> say >> 90% of the users out there. Of course the 10% that know tech are >going to >> want all of the speed they can get... but do we really need it? >> >> Anyways... it amazes me how many WISP's only offer 1Mb speed >packages... >> their base one being 128Kb. But in their part of the country that is >what >> works. Wireless in cities saturated with Cable/DSL is probably best >left >> to >> businesses where your competing against T-1 lines and Fiber. >> >> Daniel White >> 3-dB Networks >> http://www.3dbnetworks.com >> >> >>>-Original Message- >>>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >On >>>Behalf Of David E. Smith >>>Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 12:20 PM >>>To: WISPA General List >>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>>3-dB Networks wrote: >>>> I would challenge... is why does anyone need more than 2Mb at home? >>>> >>>> Now if I'm downloading files.. :-) >>> >>>I think you just answered your own question. >>> >>>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/ >> -- >--
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
PU / Required CAPEX /ROI ARPUkbps Down kbps Up Total kbps Oversubscription kbps Required/Sub 16000 loaded sector loaded sector loaded sector (months) $17.95 Essential 500 500 100020 50 320 $5,744.00 $ 68,928.00 $ 156,750 27.28935 $27.95 Essential+ 2000800 280020 140 114 $3,194.29 $ 38,331.43 $ 64,179 20.09168 $37.95 Performance 70001000800020 400 40 $1,518.00 $ 18,216.00 $ 30,750 20.25692 $42.95 MAX10 1 100011000 20 550 29 $1,249.45 $ 14,993.45 $ 25,841 20.68175 $72.95 MAX16 16000 100017000 20 850 19 $1,373.18 $ 16,478.12 $ 21,221 15.45365 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:58 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? 2 megs is yesterday's news. U-Verse is 18/1.5 FiOS is 50/20 Charter has 60/5 Comcast has 50/10 2 megs is 36 times faster than 56k. Charter is 30 times faster than that. Why is the wireless world happy with being 10 years behind the wired world? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "Kevin Suitor" Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 10:42 AM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > We have customers worldwide who operate sectors typically with hundreds > of residential clients with 2 Mbps downlink / 256 or 512 kbps uplink and > some with who run entry level service (by NA standards) of 384 kbps > downlink / 128 kbps uplink that have an average of 250 clients per > sector with 6 sectors per BTS in an urban market. > > The WiMAX MAC is much more sophisticated than other MACs used in > wireless networking. > > Best Regards, > Kevin > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Mike Hammett > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:20 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users on a > WiMAX > AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > ------ > From: "Jeff Booher" > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM > To: "'WISPA General List'" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > >> It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base >> station, >> that only supports 30 subscribers. >> >> - >> >> Jeff >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > On >> Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer >> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> I'm certainly interested in ptmp. >> >> The Tranzeo gear is the same as Aperto isn't it? >> marlon >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Gino Villarini" >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> >>> Ligowave its ptp in 3.65... >>> >>> Might wanna look at tranzeo for 3.65 ptmp >>> >>> >>> Gino A. Villarini >>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > On >>> Behalf Of Leon Zetekoff >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:32 PM >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>> Hi Marlon...I'd look at the Ligowave stuff similar in principle to > the >>> UBNT stuff but I think much better. That's what I'd do today. >>> >>> Take care leon >>> >>> Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >>>> I'm looking into this too. >>>> >>>> So far I can't find a solution for rural towers. A 3 sector install >>>> at $20k? Not to service the 20 people that will be ab
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Yes, service. If you can't service their desire to watch NetFlix, they'll leave. I'm glad a few of you see where I'm coming from while the rest of you sit in awe. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "3-dB Networks" Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:37 PM To: "'WISPA General List'" Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > Well... I did but I didn't. > > You can have as big of a pipe into the world that you want. Heck our > office > has 45Mb symmetrical. But my downloads here are no faster at home because > of the limits on the servers your downloading from... and heck just the > internet in general. > > There is a point where no matter how fast your internet connection is... > it's not going to feel any faster. Your router will not have enough > horsepower to handle it... or your computer won't. > > At the end of the day I think people demand service. I'm talking about > say > 90% of the users out there. Of course the 10% that know tech are going to > want all of the speed they can get... but do we really need it? > > Anyways... it amazes me how many WISP's only offer 1Mb speed packages... > their base one being 128Kb. But in their part of the country that is what > works. Wireless in cities saturated with Cable/DSL is probably best left > to > businesses where your competing against T-1 lines and Fiber. > > Daniel White > 3-dB Networks > http://www.3dbnetworks.com > > >>-Original Message- >>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >>Behalf Of David E. Smith >>Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 12:20 PM >>To: WISPA General List >>Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >>3-dB Networks wrote: >>> I would challenge... is why does anyone need more than 2Mb at home? >>> >>> Now if I'm downloading files.. :-) >> >>I think you just answered your own question. >> >>David Smith >>MVN.net >> >> >> >> >>WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>http://signup.wispa.org/ >> >> >> >>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >>Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
If I don't expect it, why will the manufacturers make it? They seem to be happy to court the guy offering 1 megabit out of a $8k radio when anything made in the past 8 years could do the same thing. Do I expect to take Joe mainstream away from Comcast? No. Do I want to be seen as the dialup to their superhighway? Definitely not. I plan to switch to usage based billing, but I also want a system that will supply the demand. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "3-dB Networks" Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 2:01 PM To: "'WISPA General List'" Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > Well the Canopy 430 series is going to do 42Mbps... but even then how well > is that going to work... considering your clients are going to have to be > within 2 miles. > > I don't think you should have a realistic expectation that wireless (in a > point to multipoint environment) is going to match the "next generation" > demand. You can pray and hope... but I think in many ways the laws of > physics are going to prevent wireless from competing with DSL/Cable... and > god forbid, FTTH. > > Anyways... as has also been mentioned on this list... I'd expect in 5 > years > most service providers are going to charge by usage... so stream that 5mb > movie all you want for three hours... but you're going to pay me for it. > > Daniel White > 3-dB Networks > http://www.3dbnetworks.com > > >>-Original Message- >>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >>Behalf Of Mike Hammett >>Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 12:56 PM >>To: WISPA General List >>Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >>Others on the list have mentioned the exponential increase in video use. >>Those are multi megabit streams ran for hours on end. I believe someone >>reported that NetFlix peaked at 5 megabits. Why would I deploy gear >>that >>couldn't handle these next generation services? >> >> >>- >>Mike Hammett >>Intelligent Computing Solutions >>http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> >>-- >>From: "3-dB Networks" >>Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:13 PM >>To: "'WISPA General List'" >>Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >>> Because speed isn't everything. >>> >>> Mesa went head to head with Cable and DSL for a long time... offering >>> packages of 7Mb this or that. Our highest package was 2.5Mb/1Mb. Yet >>we >>> still did a very respectful job, because we offered the best customer >>> service around, and people liked using a local company. >>> >>> I would challenge... is why does anyone need more than 2Mb at home? I >>> have >>> a 15Mb Business Class Comcast connection at home... it burst to 30Mb. >>Yet >>> it doesn't feel any faster than a 2Mb connection to me. >>> >>> Now if I'm downloading files... :-) >>> >>> Daniel White >>> 3-dB Networks >>> http://www.3dbnetworks.com >>> >>> >>>>-Original Message- >>>>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >>On >>>>Behalf Of Mike Hammett >>>>Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 11:58 AM >>>>To: WISPA General List >>>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>> >>>>2 megs is yesterday's news. >>>> >>>>U-Verse is 18/1.5 >>>>FiOS is 50/20 >>>>Charter has 60/5 >>>>Comcast has 50/10 >>>> >>>>2 megs is 36 times faster than 56k. Charter is 30 times faster than >>>>that. >>>> >>>>Why is the wireless world happy with being 10 years behind the wired >>>>world? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>- >>>>Mike Hammett >>>>Intelligent Computing Solutions >>>>http://www.ics-il.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>-- >>>>From: "Kevin Suitor" >>>>Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 10:42 AM >>>>To: "WISPA General List" >>>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>> >>>>> We have customers worldwide who operate sectors typically with >>>>hundreds >>>>> of residential clients with 2 Mbps downlink / 2
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Well the Canopy 430 series is going to do 42Mbps... but even then how well is that going to work... considering your clients are going to have to be within 2 miles. I don't think you should have a realistic expectation that wireless (in a point to multipoint environment) is going to match the "next generation" demand. You can pray and hope... but I think in many ways the laws of physics are going to prevent wireless from competing with DSL/Cable... and god forbid, FTTH. Anyways... as has also been mentioned on this list... I'd expect in 5 years most service providers are going to charge by usage... so stream that 5mb movie all you want for three hours... but you're going to pay me for it. Daniel White 3-dB Networks http://www.3dbnetworks.com >-Original Message- >From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >Behalf Of Mike Hammett >Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 12:56 PM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > >Others on the list have mentioned the exponential increase in video use. >Those are multi megabit streams ran for hours on end. I believe someone >reported that NetFlix peaked at 5 megabits. Why would I deploy gear >that >couldn't handle these next generation services? > > >- >Mike Hammett >Intelligent Computing Solutions >http://www.ics-il.com > > > >-- >From: "3-dB Networks" >Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:13 PM >To: "'WISPA General List'" >Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > >> Because speed isn't everything. >> >> Mesa went head to head with Cable and DSL for a long time... offering >> packages of 7Mb this or that. Our highest package was 2.5Mb/1Mb. Yet >we >> still did a very respectful job, because we offered the best customer >> service around, and people liked using a local company. >> >> I would challenge... is why does anyone need more than 2Mb at home? I >> have >> a 15Mb Business Class Comcast connection at home... it burst to 30Mb. >Yet >> it doesn't feel any faster than a 2Mb connection to me. >> >> Now if I'm downloading files... :-) >> >> Daniel White >> 3-dB Networks >> http://www.3dbnetworks.com >> >> >>>-Original Message- >>>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >On >>>Behalf Of Mike Hammett >>>Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 11:58 AM >>>To: WISPA General List >>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>>2 megs is yesterday's news. >>> >>>U-Verse is 18/1.5 >>>FiOS is 50/20 >>>Charter has 60/5 >>>Comcast has 50/10 >>> >>>2 megs is 36 times faster than 56k. Charter is 30 times faster than >>>that. >>> >>>Why is the wireless world happy with being 10 years behind the wired >>>world? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>- >>>Mike Hammett >>>Intelligent Computing Solutions >>>http://www.ics-il.com >>> >>> >>> >>>-- >>>From: "Kevin Suitor" >>>Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 10:42 AM >>>To: "WISPA General List" >>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>>> We have customers worldwide who operate sectors typically with >>>hundreds >>>> of residential clients with 2 Mbps downlink / 256 or 512 kbps uplink >>>and >>>> some with who run entry level service (by NA standards) of 384 kbps >>>> downlink / 128 kbps uplink that have an average of 250 clients per >>>> sector with 6 sectors per BTS in an urban market. >>>> >>>> The WiMAX MAC is much more sophisticated than other MACs used in >>>> wireless networking. >>>> >>>> Best Regards, >>>> Kevin >>>> >>>> -Original Message- >>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >>>On >>>> Behalf Of Mike Hammett >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:20 PM >>>> To: WISPA General List >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>> >>>> More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users on a >>>> WiMAX >>>> AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. >>>> >>>> >>>> - >>>> Mike Hammett >>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>>>
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
I was referring to the magnitude in difference from what I'm being told to sell vs. what the competition is doing and what dial up is. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "Matt Liotta" Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:40 PM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > On Mar 20, 2009, at 1:57 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: > >> 2 megs is yesterday's news. >> >> U-Verse is 18/1.5 >> FiOS is 50/20 >> Charter has 60/5 >> Comcast has 50/10 >> >> 2 megs is 36 times faster than 56k. Charter is 30 times faster than >> that. >> >> Why is the wireless world happy with being 10 years behind the wired >> world? >> > Not sure how any of the above is relevant to 3.65 specifically or to > where the thread veered off to. There is not going to be a wireless- > based system that can compete with cable/fiber for residential use. > > -Matt > > > > 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] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Others on the list have mentioned the exponential increase in video use. Those are multi megabit streams ran for hours on end. I believe someone reported that NetFlix peaked at 5 megabits. Why would I deploy gear that couldn't handle these next generation services? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "3-dB Networks" Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:13 PM To: "'WISPA General List'" Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > Because speed isn't everything. > > Mesa went head to head with Cable and DSL for a long time... offering > packages of 7Mb this or that. Our highest package was 2.5Mb/1Mb. Yet we > still did a very respectful job, because we offered the best customer > service around, and people liked using a local company. > > I would challenge... is why does anyone need more than 2Mb at home? I > have > a 15Mb Business Class Comcast connection at home... it burst to 30Mb. Yet > it doesn't feel any faster than a 2Mb connection to me. > > Now if I'm downloading files... :-) > > Daniel White > 3-dB Networks > http://www.3dbnetworks.com > > >>-Original Message- >>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >>Behalf Of Mike Hammett >>Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 11:58 AM >>To: WISPA General List >>Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >>2 megs is yesterday's news. >> >>U-Verse is 18/1.5 >>FiOS is 50/20 >>Charter has 60/5 >>Comcast has 50/10 >> >>2 megs is 36 times faster than 56k. Charter is 30 times faster than >>that. >> >>Why is the wireless world happy with being 10 years behind the wired >>world? >> >> >> >> >>----- >>Mike Hammett >>Intelligent Computing Solutions >>http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> >>-- >>From: "Kevin Suitor" >>Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 10:42 AM >>To: "WISPA General List" >>Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >>> We have customers worldwide who operate sectors typically with >>hundreds >>> of residential clients with 2 Mbps downlink / 256 or 512 kbps uplink >>and >>> some with who run entry level service (by NA standards) of 384 kbps >>> downlink / 128 kbps uplink that have an average of 250 clients per >>> sector with 6 sectors per BTS in an urban market. >>> >>> The WiMAX MAC is much more sophisticated than other MACs used in >>> wireless networking. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> Kevin >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >>On >>> Behalf Of Mike Hammett >>> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:20 PM >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>> More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users on a >>> WiMAX >>> AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. >>> >>> >>> - >>> Mike Hammett >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>> http://www.ics-il.com >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> From: "Jeff Booher" >>> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM >>> To: "'WISPA General List'" >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>>> It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base >>>> station, >>>> that only supports 30 subscribers. >>>> >>>> - >>>> >>>> Jeff >>>> >>>> >>>> -Original Message- >>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >>> On >>>> Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM >>>> To: WISPA General List >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>> >>>> I'm certainly interested in ptmp. >>>> >>>> The Tranzeo gear is the same as Aperto isn't it? >>>> marlon >>>> >>>> - Original Message - >>>> From: "Gino Villarini" >>>> To: "WISPA General List" >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>> >>>>
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
On Mar 20, 2009, at 1:57 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: > 2 megs is yesterday's news. > > U-Verse is 18/1.5 > FiOS is 50/20 > Charter has 60/5 > Comcast has 50/10 > > 2 megs is 36 times faster than 56k. Charter is 30 times faster than > that. > > Why is the wireless world happy with being 10 years behind the wired > world? > Not sure how any of the above is relevant to 3.65 specifically or to where the thread veered off to. There is not going to be a wireless- based system that can compete with cable/fiber for residential use. -Matt 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] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Well... I did but I didn't. You can have as big of a pipe into the world that you want. Heck our office has 45Mb symmetrical. But my downloads here are no faster at home because of the limits on the servers your downloading from... and heck just the internet in general. There is a point where no matter how fast your internet connection is... it's not going to feel any faster. Your router will not have enough horsepower to handle it... or your computer won't. At the end of the day I think people demand service. I'm talking about say 90% of the users out there. Of course the 10% that know tech are going to want all of the speed they can get... but do we really need it? Anyways... it amazes me how many WISP's only offer 1Mb speed packages... their base one being 128Kb. But in their part of the country that is what works. Wireless in cities saturated with Cable/DSL is probably best left to businesses where your competing against T-1 lines and Fiber. Daniel White 3-dB Networks http://www.3dbnetworks.com >-Original Message- >From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >Behalf Of David E. Smith >Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 12:20 PM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > >3-dB Networks wrote: >> I would challenge... is why does anyone need more than 2Mb at home? >> >> Now if I'm downloading files.. :-) > >I think you just answered your own question. > >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] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Might want to get a license for that. -Matt On Mar 20, 2009, at 12:59 PM, Travis Johnson wrote: > I have a single 3.65 Mikrotik system (RB411 with XR3-3.7 cards) > feeding three remote towers. Rock solid. 60+ days now. 11Mbps. 18 > miles. > > Travis > Microserv > > Matt Liotta wrote: >> >> According to the FCC you haven't deployed any 3.65 gear, so you must >> not be talking about the same radios I am. >> >> -Matt >> >> On Mar 18, 2009, at 6:33 PM, Travis Johnson wrote: >> >> >>> We have a sector feeding 3 other towers that has been rock solid for >>> 59 days now. Using a 10mhz channel, delivering 11Mbps at 18 miles. >>> >>> Travis >>> Microserv >>> >>> Matt Liotta wrote: >>> >>>> Yes, but the UBNT 3.65 radios are crap. Everyone we tried was >>>> worthless. On the other hand, every Redline 3.65 radio whether >>>> RedMax >>>> or AN80 has worked perfect. >>>> >>>> -Matt >>>> >>>> On Mar 18, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Brian Rohrbacher wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Wow. I have 200 UBNT radios out there and not a single failure, >>>>> not >>>>> even to lightning. These are 2.4, but still. I sure do like >>>>> them. >>>>> >>>>> rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I put up some Ubiquiti based gear, one of the radios died about >>>>>> 1hr into >>>>>> carrying traffic. >>>>>> >>>>>> UBNT shipped me new ones to try overnight. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'll update. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> - Original Message - >>>>>> From: "Gino Villarini" >>>>>> To: "Motorola Canopy User Group" ; "WISPA >>>>>> General List" >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:55 AM >>>>>> Subject: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Fellow operators: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Any updates on your experienes with 3.65 gear? PMP and PTP? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Any updates on experiences with: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Redline, Aperto, Tranzeo, Vecima, Alvarion, Ligowave, Solectek, >>>>>>> Airspan >>>>>>> ??? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gino A. Villarini >>>>>>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>>>>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>>>>>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
If I only got two megs at home I'd move. I have 35mb symmetrical connection I am fond of. A lot of people however in our neck of the woods wouldn't settle for anything less than 5-10 Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message > From: "David E. Smith" > Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 2:19 PM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > 3-dB Networks wrote: > > I would challenge... is why does anyone need more than 2Mb at home? > > > > Now if I'm downloading files.. :-) > > I think you just answered your own question. > > 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] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
3-dB Networks wrote: > I would challenge... is why does anyone need more than 2Mb at home? > > Now if I'm downloading files.. :-) I think you just answered your own question. 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/
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Because speed isn't everything. Mesa went head to head with Cable and DSL for a long time... offering packages of 7Mb this or that. Our highest package was 2.5Mb/1Mb. Yet we still did a very respectful job, because we offered the best customer service around, and people liked using a local company. I would challenge... is why does anyone need more than 2Mb at home? I have a 15Mb Business Class Comcast connection at home... it burst to 30Mb. Yet it doesn't feel any faster than a 2Mb connection to me. Now if I'm downloading files... :-) Daniel White 3-dB Networks http://www.3dbnetworks.com >-Original Message- >From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >Behalf Of Mike Hammett >Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 11:58 AM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > >2 megs is yesterday's news. > >U-Verse is 18/1.5 >FiOS is 50/20 >Charter has 60/5 >Comcast has 50/10 > >2 megs is 36 times faster than 56k. Charter is 30 times faster than >that. > >Why is the wireless world happy with being 10 years behind the wired >world? > > > > >- >Mike Hammett >Intelligent Computing Solutions >http://www.ics-il.com > > > >------ >From: "Kevin Suitor" >Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 10:42 AM >To: "WISPA General List" >Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > >> We have customers worldwide who operate sectors typically with >hundreds >> of residential clients with 2 Mbps downlink / 256 or 512 kbps uplink >and >> some with who run entry level service (by NA standards) of 384 kbps >> downlink / 128 kbps uplink that have an average of 250 clients per >> sector with 6 sectors per BTS in an urban market. >> >> The WiMAX MAC is much more sophisticated than other MACs used in >> wireless networking. >> >> Best Regards, >> Kevin >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >On >> Behalf Of Mike Hammett >> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:20 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users on a >> WiMAX >> AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> >> -- >> From: "Jeff Booher" >> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM >> To: "'WISPA General List'" >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >>> It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base >>> station, >>> that only supports 30 subscribers. >>> >>> - >>> >>> Jeff >>> >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >> On >>> Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>> I'm certainly interested in ptmp. >>> >>> The Tranzeo gear is the same as Aperto isn't it? >>> marlon >>> >>> - Original Message ----- >>> From: "Gino Villarini" >>> To: "WISPA General List" >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 PM >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>> >>>> Ligowave its ptp in 3.65... >>>> >>>> Might wanna look at tranzeo for 3.65 ptmp >>>> >>>> >>>> Gino A. Villarini >>>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>>> >>>> -Original Message- >>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >> On >>>> Behalf Of Leon Zetekoff >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:32 PM >>>> To: WISPA General List >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>> >>>> Hi Marlon...I'd look at the Ligowave stuff similar in principle to >> the >>>> UBNT stuff but I think much better. That's what I'd do today. >>>> >>>> Take care leon >>>> >>>> Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >>>>> I'm looking into this too. >>
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
2 megs is yesterday's news. U-Verse is 18/1.5 FiOS is 50/20 Charter has 60/5 Comcast has 50/10 2 megs is 36 times faster than 56k. Charter is 30 times faster than that. Why is the wireless world happy with being 10 years behind the wired world? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "Kevin Suitor" Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 10:42 AM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > We have customers worldwide who operate sectors typically with hundreds > of residential clients with 2 Mbps downlink / 256 or 512 kbps uplink and > some with who run entry level service (by NA standards) of 384 kbps > downlink / 128 kbps uplink that have an average of 250 clients per > sector with 6 sectors per BTS in an urban market. > > The WiMAX MAC is much more sophisticated than other MACs used in > wireless networking. > > Best Regards, > Kevin > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Mike Hammett > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:20 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users on a > WiMAX > AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > ---------- > From: "Jeff Booher" > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM > To: "'WISPA General List'" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > >> It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base >> station, >> that only supports 30 subscribers. >> >> - >> >> Jeff >> >> >> -----Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > On >> Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer >> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> I'm certainly interested in ptmp. >> >> The Tranzeo gear is the same as Aperto isn't it? >> marlon >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Gino Villarini" >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> >>> Ligowave its ptp in 3.65... >>> >>> Might wanna look at tranzeo for 3.65 ptmp >>> >>> >>> Gino A. Villarini >>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > On >>> Behalf Of Leon Zetekoff >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:32 PM >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>> Hi Marlon...I'd look at the Ligowave stuff similar in principle to > the >>> UBNT stuff but I think much better. That's what I'd do today. >>> >>> Take care leon >>> >>> Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >>>> I'm looking into this too. >>>> >>>> So far I can't find a solution for rural towers. A 3 sector install >>>> at $20k? Not to service the 20 people that will be able to even see >>>> that tower >>>> >>>> Anyone have any better ideas? >>>> marlon >>>> >>>> - Original Message - >>>> From: "Gino Villarini" >>>> To: "Motorola Canopy User Group" ; "WISPA > General >>> List" >>>> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:55 AM >>>> Subject: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Fellow operators: >>>>> >>>>> Any updates on your experienes with 3.65 gear? PMP and PTP? >>>>> >>>>> Any updates on experiences with: >>>>> >>>>> Redline, Aperto, Tranzeo, Vecima, Alvarion, Ligowave, Solectek, >>>>> Airspan ??? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Gino A. Villarini >>>>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>>>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
I think what Mike is getting at is that WIMAX(and every other PtMP wireless technology available today) is not going to give us the speed we need to compete with cable offering 10 - 20 Mbit to residential users...not to mention what fiber is going to do. Scottie -- Original Message -- From: "Kevin Suitor" Reply-To: WISPA General List Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:42:23 -0400 >We have customers worldwide who operate sectors typically with hundreds >of residential clients with 2 Mbps downlink / 256 or 512 kbps uplink and >some with who run entry level service (by NA standards) of 384 kbps >downlink / 128 kbps uplink that have an average of 250 clients per >sector with 6 sectors per BTS in an urban market. > >The WiMAX MAC is much more sophisticated than other MACs used in >wireless networking. > >Best Regards, >Kevin > >-Original Message- >From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >Behalf Of Mike Hammett >Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:20 PM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > >More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users on a >WiMAX >AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. > > >- >Mike Hammett >Intelligent Computing Solutions >http://www.ics-il.com > > > >------ >From: "Jeff Booher" >Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM >To: "'WISPA General List'" >Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > >> It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base >> station, >> that only supports 30 subscribers. >> >> - >> >> Jeff >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >On >> Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer >> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> I'm certainly interested in ptmp. >> >> The Tranzeo gear is the same as Aperto isn't it? >> marlon >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Gino Villarini" >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> >>> Ligowave its ptp in 3.65... >>> >>> Might wanna look at tranzeo for 3.65 ptmp >>> >>> >>> Gino A. Villarini >>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >On >>> Behalf Of Leon Zetekoff >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:32 PM >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>> Hi Marlon...I'd look at the Ligowave stuff similar in principle to >the >>> UBNT stuff but I think much better. That's what I'd do today. >>> >>> Take care leon >>> >>> Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >>>> I'm looking into this too. >>>> >>>> So far I can't find a solution for rural towers. A 3 sector install >>>> at $20k? Not to service the 20 people that will be able to even see >>>> that tower >>>> >>>> Anyone have any better ideas? >>>> marlon >>>> >>>> - Original Message - >>>> From: "Gino Villarini" >>>> To: "Motorola Canopy User Group" ; "WISPA >General >>> List" >>>> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:55 AM >>>> Subject: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Fellow operators: >>>>> >>>>> Any updates on your experienes with 3.65 gear? PMP and PTP? >>>>> >>>>> Any updates on experiences with: >>>>> >>>>> Redline, Aperto, Tranzeo, Vecima, Alvarion, Ligowave, Solectek, >>>>> Airspan ??? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Gino A. Villarini >>>>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>>>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > >>> >>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >&g
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
No, Ketchup is a vegetable, Rutabaga is cattle feed. George Rogato wrote: > > Jeff Booher wrote: >> Mike, >> >> This once again is not an apples to apples argument but rather apples to >> rutabega. Still fruit, but very different fruit :) >> > > I thought a rutabega was a vegitable. > > 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] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
I have a single 3.65 Mikrotik system (RB411 with XR3-3.7 cards) feeding three remote towers. Rock solid. 60+ days now. 11Mbps. 18 miles. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: According to the FCC you haven't deployed any 3.65 gear, so you must not be talking about the same radios I am. -Matt On Mar 18, 2009, at 6:33 PM, Travis Johnson wrote: We have a sector feeding 3 other towers that has been rock solid for 59 days now. Using a 10mhz channel, delivering 11Mbps at 18 miles. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: Yes, but the UBNT 3.65 radios are crap. Everyone we tried was worthless. On the other hand, every Redline 3.65 radio whether RedMax or AN80 has worked perfect. -Matt On Mar 18, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Brian Rohrbacher wrote: Wow. I have 200 UBNT radios out there and not a single failure, not even to lightning. These are 2.4, but still. I sure do like them. rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: I put up some Ubiquiti based gear, one of the radios died about 1hr into carrying traffic. UBNT shipped me new ones to try overnight. I'll update. - Original Message - From: "Gino Villarini" To: "Motorola Canopy User Group" ; "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:55 AM Subject: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? Fellow operators: Any updates on your experienes with 3.65 gear? PMP and PTP? Any updates on experiences with: Redline, Aperto, Tranzeo, Vecima, Alvarion, Ligowave, Solectek, Airspan ??? Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
We have customers worldwide who operate sectors typically with hundreds of residential clients with 2 Mbps downlink / 256 or 512 kbps uplink and some with who run entry level service (by NA standards) of 384 kbps downlink / 128 kbps uplink that have an average of 250 clients per sector with 6 sectors per BTS in an urban market. The WiMAX MAC is much more sophisticated than other MACs used in wireless networking. Best Regards, Kevin -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users on a WiMAX AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "Jeff Booher" Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM To: "'WISPA General List'" Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base > station, > that only supports 30 subscribers. > > - > > Jeff > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > I'm certainly interested in ptmp. > > The Tranzeo gear is the same as Aperto isn't it? > marlon > > - Original Message ----- > From: "Gino Villarini" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > >> Ligowave its ptp in 3.65... >> >> Might wanna look at tranzeo for 3.65 ptmp >> >> >> Gino A. Villarini >> g...@aeronetpr.com >> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >> >> -----Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Leon Zetekoff >> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:32 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> Hi Marlon...I'd look at the Ligowave stuff similar in principle to the >> UBNT stuff but I think much better. That's what I'd do today. >> >> Take care leon >> >> Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >>> I'm looking into this too. >>> >>> So far I can't find a solution for rural towers. A 3 sector install >>> at $20k? Not to service the 20 people that will be able to even see >>> that tower >>> >>> Anyone have any better ideas? >>> marlon >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Gino Villarini" >>> To: "Motorola Canopy User Group" ; "WISPA General >> List" >>> >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:55 AM >>> Subject: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>> >>> >>>> Fellow operators: >>>> >>>> Any updates on your experienes with 3.65 gear? PMP and PTP? >>>> >>>> Any updates on experiences with: >>>> >>>> Redline, Aperto, Tranzeo, Vecima, Alvarion, Ligowave, Solectek, >>>> Airspan ??? >>>> >>>> >>>> Gino A. Villarini >>>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>>> >> >> >> >> >> 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] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
According to the FCC you haven't deployed any 3.65 gear, so you must not be talking about the same radios I am. -Matt On Mar 18, 2009, at 6:33 PM, Travis Johnson wrote: > We have a sector feeding 3 other towers that has been rock solid for > 59 days now. Using a 10mhz channel, delivering 11Mbps at 18 miles. > > Travis > Microserv > > Matt Liotta wrote: >> >> Yes, but the UBNT 3.65 radios are crap. Everyone we tried was >> worthless. On the other hand, every Redline 3.65 radio whether RedMax >> or AN80 has worked perfect. >> >> -Matt >> >> On Mar 18, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Brian Rohrbacher wrote: >> >> >>> Wow. I have 200 UBNT radios out there and not a single failure, not >>> even to lightning. These are 2.4, but still. I sure do like them. >>> >>> rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: >>> >>>> I put up some Ubiquiti based gear, one of the radios died about >>>> 1hr into >>>> carrying traffic. >>>> >>>> UBNT shipped me new ones to try overnight. >>>> >>>> I'll update. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> - Original Message - >>>> From: "Gino Villarini" >>>> To: "Motorola Canopy User Group" ; "WISPA >>>> General List" >>>> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:55 AM >>>> Subject: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Fellow operators: >>>>> >>>>> Any updates on your experienes with 3.65 gear? PMP and PTP? >>>>> >>>>> Any updates on experiences with: >>>>> >>>>> Redline, Aperto, Tranzeo, Vecima, Alvarion, Ligowave, Solectek, >>>>> Airspan >>>>> ??? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Gino A. Villarini >>>>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>>>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>>>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>>>> >>>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>>>> >>>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>>> >>>> >>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>>> >>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>>> >>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>> >>> >>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>> >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>> >> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> >> > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
location location location and location I have towers that hit very close to your 1000 sqare miles (18 miles with 2 to 3 megs delivered via ptp radio). There are only 10 or so subs on that tower. We have other towers that cover over 700 square miles and they service less than 10 people. It's not that we do a bad sales job, there just aren't any people that live there. On one of the NTIA sessions the other day someone FINALLY pointed out that even Canada has a higher % of urban vs. rural residents than the USA. Location Location Location marlon - Original Message - From: "John Rock" To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 10:18 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? Hey reader you are muddying the waters a bit here. I thought the days were over when people thought they could put up one base station and serve a 1000 square miles or worse put up one base station and server a 1000 customers. I have a customer in Canada that serves 12 Mb out to 45 kilometers via WiMAX, LOS of course. 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 rea...@muddyfrogwater.us Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:45 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? I can get 12 to 18 mbit off my 5 ghz AP's, and with customers limited to 2Mbit, I'm still bumping into limits in the 30 - 45 range per AP, and even then, I consider it oversubscribed. Now, 18mbit throughput in 7 mhz is great... But how good does the signal have to be, and when the signals degrade due to distance or... How much effect does this have? What's the distance you can do 18? 2 miles? 4 miles? I need 25 miles... I can't even GO 25 miles decently with 3.65, due to eirp limits. - Original Message - From: "Mike Hammett" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:33 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > Good efficiencies, not enough throughput per channel, however. > > In one thread in one list we have people complaining about not having > enough > bandwidth to serve their customers now much less next year or the next and > in the other, we have people excited about an AP that only does 18 > megabit. > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > -------------- > From: "Gino Villarini" > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:24 PM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > >> Not enough? You get 18 mbps in a 7 mhz channel >> >> >> Gino A. Villarini >> g...@aeronetpr.com >> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >> >> -----Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Mike Hammett >> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:20 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users on a >> WiMAX AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> >> -- >> From: "Jeff Booher" >> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM >> To: "'WISPA General List'" >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >>> It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base >>> station, >>> that only supports 30 subscribers. >>> >>> - >>> >>> Jeff >>> >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >> On >>> Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM >
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Who says I'm happy with the status quo of 1.5 or even 6 meg? BTW: muddyfrogwater != Me Yes, WiMAX is technically better than WiFi, but who says I'm talking about WiFi? If there was a non-crippled WiMAX AP that supported reasonable amounts of bandwidth (40 at a minimum - say with a 20 MHz channel) and was available for $2000 or so, I'd be interested. There isn't nor will there be any time soon, so I'll pass on WiMAX. I just wish Company A would finish their product already so I can actually make product references in my arguments assuming what they say is even half true... and yes they are a company that's been around a few years. I don't want to be a "me too" or a last resort. I want to lead the pack. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "Jeff Booher" Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 8:12 PM To: ; "'WISPA General List'" Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > Mike, > > This once again is not an apples to apples argument but rather apples to > rutabega. Still fruit, but very different fruit :) > > Correct the per AP bandwidth would be higher. However, try loading an > 802.11x system with 100 subscribers. It will choke and the end user > experience will be very bad. It would choke not from bandwidth, but from > simple issues with the scheduler. I don't know of a single 802.11 based > system that loads well to 100 plus subscriber stations. > > Considering Wimax can support these sort of subscriber totals, per sector > in > reality, from a spectral efficency standpoint, in 5.8ghz, on ONE tower you > can support something in the neighboorhood of 240mb/sec in total base > station capacity. ( 34 sectors/120mhz ). So yes, you cant sell many 6/6 > pipes off this base station, but you can sell a heck of a lot of 1.5/1.5 > mb > pipes ( probably around 2400 subscribers ) FROM one tower location. > > Not to mention the stablity of Wimax, which is a lot more stable in > modulation, error rate, latencythat it can support many many voice > over > ip connections. ( our product can support over 300 concurrent calls per > sector ). Also im completely certain that by using a wider RF channel you > increase the required CINR to achieve full modulation, while reducing your > effective range. Wimax has an effective LOS Range @ peak modulation in > 5.8ghz of 10 miles plus. > > So yes its expensive. But it definitely beats legacy systems in many > different areas. What good is 300mb in throughput if you can only go 2 > miles > with it and the probability of interference is extremely high? On a 7mhz > channel you can easily find open spectrum. I understand the business case > issues with Wimax, and Aperto is probably one of the very few companies > that > is sensitive to this issue and is working diligently to find solutions > that > can meet customer needs, so that a residential business case can be met. > We > know that most customers can't afford a 20 month payback, there is no > arugment there. > > Best Regards, > > _ > > Jeff Booher > > Sales Director, North America > www.apertonet.com > > > > > - > > > > > -Original Message- > From: rea...@muddyfrogwater.us [mailto:rea...@muddyfrogwater.us] > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 5:34 PM > To: jefftho...@fastmail.fm; WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > Sheesh. How many times must this misinformation be posted before the > snake > > oil gets poured down the drain? > > The better MAC allows you to use a very high percentage of transmission > time > for actual data throughput, and it manages spreading bandwidth nicely > among > the oversubscribed. HOWEVER... > > If you built a 300mbit 802.11 PTMP system, you'd get about 120 total > throughput. > > This means you're using massive amounts of spectrum, but the actual > throughput would be higher than ANY WIMAX setup to date. This snake oil > about the MAC supposedly violating physics and putting 36mbit through an > 18 > mbit pipe is nonsense.802.11 sucks because the MAC wastes well over > 50% > of the airtime doing nothing at all, has absolutely no means of managing > bandwidth use or dividing use among the users. However, REAL THROUGHPUT > IS > > REAL THROUGHPUT. > > If you have an 18 mbit WIMAX you can support 3 clients consuming a little > less than 6 each. > > Add client #4 asking for 6mbit and the the other three MUST LOSE BANDWIDTH > TO FEED IT. Get it? So, instead of just under 6 each, if they're all > equal priority, all 4 get about 4. Duhh. That'
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Hey reader you are muddying the waters a bit here. I thought the days were over when people thought they could put up one base station and serve a 1000 square miles or worse put up one base station and server a 1000 customers. I have a customer in Canada that serves 12 Mb out to 45 kilometers via WiMAX, LOS of course. 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 rea...@muddyfrogwater.us Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:45 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? I can get 12 to 18 mbit off my 5 ghz AP's, and with customers limited to 2Mbit, I'm still bumping into limits in the 30 - 45 range per AP, and even then, I consider it oversubscribed. Now, 18mbit throughput in 7 mhz is great... But how good does the signal have to be, and when the signals degrade due to distance or... How much effect does this have? What's the distance you can do 18? 2 miles? 4 miles? I need 25 miles... I can't even GO 25 miles decently with 3.65, due to eirp limits. - Original Message - From: "Mike Hammett" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:33 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > Good efficiencies, not enough throughput per channel, however. > > In one thread in one list we have people complaining about not having > enough > bandwidth to serve their customers now much less next year or the next and > in the other, we have people excited about an AP that only does 18 > megabit. > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > -- > From: "Gino Villarini" > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:24 PM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > >> Not enough? You get 18 mbps in a 7 mhz channel >> >> >> Gino A. Villarini >> g...@aeronetpr.com >> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Mike Hammett >> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:20 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users on a >> WiMAX AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> >> -- >> From: "Jeff Booher" >> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM >> To: "'WISPA General List'" >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >>> It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base >>> station, >>> that only supports 30 subscribers. >>> >>> - >>> >>> Jeff >>> >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >> On >>> Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>> I'm certainly interested in ptmp. >>> >>> The Tranzeo gear is the same as Aperto isn't it? >>> marlon >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Gino Villarini" >>> To: "WISPA General List" >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 PM >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>> >>>> Ligowave its ptp in 3.65... >>>> >>>> Might wanna look at tranzeo for 3.65 ptmp >>>> >>>> >>>> Gino A. Villarini >>>> g...@aeronetp
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
I have not because no one has convinced me that 15 customers can watch online video at the same time. Over 20% of my subscriber base watches online video from NetFlix, Blockbuster, ABC, NBC, etc. Why would I spend $5k+ on an AP that would serve them less than my $250 AP does now? I sure could put 2400 people on 18 megabit if it was 2001, but it is 2009, sorry. BTW: You certainly can make kids eat what they don't want. After I sat at the table for 4 hours hungry, I picked up whatever it was in front of me and ate it. Eat what mom prepared or don't eat at all. I am a big boy now and eat what I choose, and because I was forced to eat what was in front of me when I was young, there's very little I won't eat. I'm not sure how that works into your story, but do it as you see fit. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "John Rock" Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 12:03 AM To: "'WISPA General List'" Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > When my son was 6 he would not eat pork chops simply because he never had > tried them. He is 15 now and absolutely loves pork chops, grilled ribs > etc. > It did take him till he was 13 before he tried them. I am a firm believer > you can't make kids eat anything they don't want to eat. > Mike, Have you tried WiMAX yet? If so how and with whom? > > 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 Mike Hammett > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 3:37 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > I am happy for you in your business, that's why I try to connect you with > other WISPs as often as I can. > > However, I started my company because I didn't have broadband at my house. > My neighbor didn't have broadband. I sure as hell wasn't going to pay > $500/month for it. > > WiMAX certainly has its places, but residential broadband isn't one of > them. > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > -- > From: "Matt Liotta" > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:01 PM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > >> Maybe the equipment isn't the problem then. >> >> -Matt >> >> On Mar 19, 2009, at 2:49 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: >> >>> You're not going to get that in the residential market, which is >>> where most >>> of us compete. >>> >>> >>> - >>> Mike Hammett >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>> http://www.ics-il.com >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> From: "Matt Liotta" >>> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:39 PM >>> To: "WISPA General List" >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>>> We are seeing around $500 ARPU and on average 6 customers deployed >>>> per 7Mhz channel with our RedMax basestations. I see no reason to >>>> complain. >>>> >>>> -Matt >>>> >>>> On Mar 19, 2009, at 2:33 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: >>>> >>>>> Good efficiencies, not enough throughput per channel, however. >>>>> >>>>> In one thread in one list we have people complaining about not >>>>> having enough >>>>> bandwidth to serve their customers now much less next year or the >>>>> next and >>>>> in the other, we have people excited about an AP that only does 18 >>>>> megabit. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> - >>>>> Mik
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
When my son was 6 he would not eat pork chops simply because he never had tried them. He is 15 now and absolutely loves pork chops, grilled ribs etc. It did take him till he was 13 before he tried them. I am a firm believer you can't make kids eat anything they don't want to eat. Mike, Have you tried WiMAX yet? If so how and with whom? 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 Mike Hammett Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 3:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? I am happy for you in your business, that's why I try to connect you with other WISPs as often as I can. However, I started my company because I didn't have broadband at my house. My neighbor didn't have broadband. I sure as hell wasn't going to pay $500/month for it. WiMAX certainly has its places, but residential broadband isn't one of them. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "Matt Liotta" Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:01 PM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > Maybe the equipment isn't the problem then. > > -Matt > > On Mar 19, 2009, at 2:49 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: > >> You're not going to get that in the residential market, which is >> where most >> of us compete. >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> >> -------------- >> From: "Matt Liotta" >> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:39 PM >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >>> We are seeing around $500 ARPU and on average 6 customers deployed >>> per 7Mhz channel with our RedMax basestations. I see no reason to >>> complain. >>> >>> -Matt >>> >>> On Mar 19, 2009, at 2:33 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: >>> >>>> Good efficiencies, not enough throughput per channel, however. >>>> >>>> In one thread in one list we have people complaining about not >>>> having enough >>>> bandwidth to serve their customers now much less next year or the >>>> next and >>>> in the other, we have people excited about an AP that only does 18 >>>> megabit. >>>> >>>> >>>> - >>>> Mike Hammett >>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>>> http://www.ics-il.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> From: "Gino Villarini" >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:24 PM >>>> To: "WISPA General List" >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>> >>>>> Not enough? You get 18 mbps in a 7 mhz channel >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Gino A. Villarini >>>>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>>>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message- >>>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- >>>>> boun...@wispa.org] On >>>>> Behalf Of Mike Hammett >>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:20 PM >>>>> To: WISPA General List >>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>>> >>>>> More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users >>>>> on a >>>>> WiMAX AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> - >>>>> Mike Hammett >>>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>>>> http://www.ics-il.com >>>>> >>>
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Jeff Booher wrote: > Mike, > > This once again is not an apples to apples argument but rather apples to > rutabega. Still fruit, but very different fruit :) > I thought a rutabega was a vegitable. 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] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
he hype > based > on comparison of RADIO DATA RATES gets chucked down the toilet. > None of us > operate that way, and none of care a whit about radio data rates. > We're > all about real throughput and good management of our our required > business > model of oversubscription. > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Jeff Booher" > To: "'WISPA General List'" > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 5:06 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > >> Mike, >> >> It absolutely has nothing to do with throughput. It has to do with >> the >> scheduling mechanism of the MAC. The reason why 802.11x networks cant >> scale >> like this is the listen before talk protocol. Even basic polling >> doesn't >> work because the more subs you add, the more latency you add to the >> network. >> >> - >> >> Jeff >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- >> boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Mike Hammett >> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:34 AM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> Good efficiencies, not enough throughput per channel, however. >> >> In one thread in one list we have people complaining about not having >> enough >> bandwidth to serve their customers now much less next year or the >> next and >> in the other, we have people excited about an AP that only does 18 >> megabit. >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> >> -- >> From: "Gino Villarini" >> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:24 PM >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >>> Not enough? You get 18 mbps in a 7 mhz channel >>> >>> >>> Gino A. Villarini >>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >>> On Behalf Of Mike Hammett >>> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:20 PM >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>> More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users on a >>> WiMAX AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. >>> >>> >>> - >>> Mike Hammett >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>> http://www.ics-il.com >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> From: "Jeff Booher" >>> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM >>> To: "'WISPA General List'" >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>>> It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base >>>> station, that only supports 30 subscribers. >>>> >>>> - >>>> >>>> Jeff >>>> >>>> >>>> -Original Message- >>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- >>>> boun...@wispa.org] >>> On >>>> Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM >>>> To: WISPA General List >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>> >>>> I'm certainly interested in ptmp. >>>> >>>> The Tranzeo gear is the same as Aperto isn't it? >>>> marlon >>>> >>>> - Original Message - >>>> From: "Gino Villarini" >>>> To: "WISPA General List" >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>> >>>> >>>>> Ligowave its ptp in 3.65... >>>>> >>>>> Might wanna look at tranzeo for 3.65 ptmp >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Gino A. Villarini >>>>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>>>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>>>> >>>>> -Original Message- >>>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org >>>
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
ONLY 18 megs of RELIABLE service would be awesome out here where some of my customers can't even get a meg due to all of the interference I have to deal with. marlon - Original Message - From: "Mike Hammett" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:33 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > Good efficiencies, not enough throughput per channel, however. > > In one thread in one list we have people complaining about not having > enough > bandwidth to serve their customers now much less next year or the next and > in the other, we have people excited about an AP that only does 18 > megabit. > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > -- > From: "Gino Villarini" > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:24 PM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > >> Not enough? You get 18 mbps in a 7 mhz channel >> >> >> Gino A. Villarini >> g...@aeronetpr.com >> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Mike Hammett >> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:20 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users on a >> WiMAX AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> >> -- >> From: "Jeff Booher" >> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM >> To: "'WISPA General List'" >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >>> It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base >>> station, >>> that only supports 30 subscribers. >>> >>> - >>> >>> Jeff >>> >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >> On >>> Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>> I'm certainly interested in ptmp. >>> >>> The Tranzeo gear is the same as Aperto isn't it? >>> marlon >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Gino Villarini" >>> To: "WISPA General List" >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 PM >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>> >>>> Ligowave its ptp in 3.65... >>>> >>>> Might wanna look at tranzeo for 3.65 ptmp >>>> >>>> >>>> Gino A. Villarini >>>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>>> >>>> -Original Message- >>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >> On >>>> Behalf Of Leon Zetekoff >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:32 PM >>>> To: WISPA General List >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>> >>>> Hi Marlon...I'd look at the Ligowave stuff similar in principle to >> the >>>> UBNT stuff but I think much better. That's what I'd do today. >>>> >>>> Take care leon >>>> >>>> Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >>>>> I'm looking into this too. >>>>> >>>>> So far I can't find a solution for rural towers. A 3 sector install >>>>> at $20k? Not to service the 20 people that will be able to even see >>>>> that tower >>>>> >>>>> Anyone have any better ideas? >>>>> marlon >>>>> >>>>> - Original Message - >>>>> From: "Gino Villarini" >>>>> To: "Motorola Canopy User Group" ; "WISPA >> General >>>> List" >>>>> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:55 AM >>>>> Subject: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Fellow
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
OK, tell me about yours. I'll need 20 to 40 users per tower. Many will likely have even fewer. In a FEW towns I might need up to 100 users but it'll be years before we hit that point. marlon - Original Message - From: "Jeff Booher" To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 9:28 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base > station, > that only supports 30 subscribers. > > - > > Jeff > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > I'm certainly interested in ptmp. > > The Tranzeo gear is the same as Aperto isn't it? > marlon > > - Original Message ----- > From: "Gino Villarini" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > >> Ligowave its ptp in 3.65... >> >> Might wanna look at tranzeo for 3.65 ptmp >> >> >> Gino A. Villarini >> g...@aeronetpr.com >> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Leon Zetekoff >> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:32 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> Hi Marlon...I'd look at the Ligowave stuff similar in principle to the >> UBNT stuff but I think much better. That's what I'd do today. >> >> Take care leon >> >> Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >>> I'm looking into this too. >>> >>> So far I can't find a solution for rural towers. A 3 sector install >>> at $20k? Not to service the 20 people that will be able to even see >>> that tower >>> >>> Anyone have any better ideas? >>> marlon >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Gino Villarini" >>> To: "Motorola Canopy User Group" ; "WISPA General >> List" >>> >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:55 AM >>> Subject: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>> >>> >>>> Fellow operators: >>>> >>>> Any updates on your experienes with 3.65 gear? PMP and PTP? >>>> >>>> Any updates on experiences with: >>>> >>>> Redline, Aperto, Tranzeo, Vecima, Alvarion, Ligowave, Solectek, >>>> Airspan ??? >>>> >>>> >>>> Gino A. Villarini >>>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>>> >> >> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> >> >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> > > >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
No worries. Only about half of my network is in the zone thanks, marlon - Original Message - From: "Pat O'Connor" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 8:39 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > Marlon I checked the map, and like me, Odessa is within the 150km > satellite exclusion zone for the station located in Brewster. From what > I've read you need to get their permission to operate anything in the > 3.65GHz spectrum. I just applied for our 3.65GHz licnse so I haven't > heard anything yet. If you want I have a .kmz file I can send you with > the exclusion zone. > > > > > > Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >> Thanks! >> marlon >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "John Valenti" >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 7:05 AM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> >> >>> Marlon, >>> >>> I watched the tranzeo wimax 3.65 webinar a few weeks back. They have >>> that pico base station for about $1700. I asked, and they said yes, it >>> would work with an omni. I know everybody says don't use an omni, but >>> maybe it would be OK on 3.65? >>> >>> I was curious because most of my grain legs would max out at 20 >>> customers (due to trees). And I certainly wouldn't want to buy three >>> sectors just to support 20 houses. >>> >>> They do have a starter kit that includes two(?) customer radios for >>> free. I'm out of money for testing things, but let us know if you try >>> it. >>> -John >>> >>> PS - they can sync multiple base stations from a central server. >>> >>> >>> On Mar 18, 2009, at 9:27 PM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >>> >>> >>>> I'm looking into this too. >>>> >>>> So far I can't find a solution for rural towers. A 3 sector install >>>> at >>>> $20k? Not to service the 20 people that will be able to even see that >>>> tower >>>> >>>> Anyone have any better ideas? >>>> marlon >>>> >>> >>> >>> 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] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Mike, This once again is not an apples to apples argument but rather apples to rutabega. Still fruit, but very different fruit :) Correct the per AP bandwidth would be higher. However, try loading an 802.11x system with 100 subscribers. It will choke and the end user experience will be very bad. It would choke not from bandwidth, but from simple issues with the scheduler. I don't know of a single 802.11 based system that loads well to 100 plus subscriber stations. Considering Wimax can support these sort of subscriber totals, per sector in reality, from a spectral efficency standpoint, in 5.8ghz, on ONE tower you can support something in the neighboorhood of 240mb/sec in total base station capacity. ( 34 sectors/120mhz ). So yes, you cant sell many 6/6 pipes off this base station, but you can sell a heck of a lot of 1.5/1.5 mb pipes ( probably around 2400 subscribers ) FROM one tower location. Not to mention the stablity of Wimax, which is a lot more stable in modulation, error rate, latencythat it can support many many voice over ip connections. ( our product can support over 300 concurrent calls per sector ). Also im completely certain that by using a wider RF channel you increase the required CINR to achieve full modulation, while reducing your effective range. Wimax has an effective LOS Range @ peak modulation in 5.8ghz of 10 miles plus. So yes its expensive. But it definitely beats legacy systems in many different areas. What good is 300mb in throughput if you can only go 2 miles with it and the probability of interference is extremely high? On a 7mhz channel you can easily find open spectrum. I understand the business case issues with Wimax, and Aperto is probably one of the very few companies that is sensitive to this issue and is working diligently to find solutions that can meet customer needs, so that a residential business case can be met. We know that most customers can't afford a 20 month payback, there is no arugment there. Best Regards, _ Jeff Booher Sales Director, North America www.apertonet.com - -Original Message- From: rea...@muddyfrogwater.us [mailto:rea...@muddyfrogwater.us] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 5:34 PM To: jefftho...@fastmail.fm; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? Sheesh. How many times must this misinformation be posted before the snake oil gets poured down the drain? The better MAC allows you to use a very high percentage of transmission time for actual data throughput, and it manages spreading bandwidth nicely among the oversubscribed. HOWEVER... If you built a 300mbit 802.11 PTMP system, you'd get about 120 total throughput. This means you're using massive amounts of spectrum, but the actual throughput would be higher than ANY WIMAX setup to date. This snake oil about the MAC supposedly violating physics and putting 36mbit through an 18 mbit pipe is nonsense.802.11 sucks because the MAC wastes well over 50% of the airtime doing nothing at all, has absolutely no means of managing bandwidth use or dividing use among the users. However, REAL THROUGHPUT IS REAL THROUGHPUT. If you have an 18 mbit WIMAX you can support 3 clients consuming a little less than 6 each. Add client #4 asking for 6mbit and the the other three MUST LOSE BANDWIDTH TO FEED IT. Get it? So, instead of just under 6 each, if they're all equal priority, all 4 get about 4. Duhh. That's it. You cannot violate physics. The MAC allows greater efficiency concerning airtime and modulation types improve throughput vs spectrum consumption. NOTHING VIOLATES THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. You cannot get 36 through an 18 knothole. Period. You guys are all WAY smarter than this, and it's about time the hype based on comparison of RADIO DATA RATES gets chucked down the toilet. None of us operate that way, and none of care a whit about radio data rates. We're all about real throughput and good management of our our required business model of oversubscription. - Original Message - From: "Jeff Booher" To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 5:06 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > Mike, > > It absolutely has nothing to do with throughput. It has to do with the > scheduling mechanism of the MAC. The reason why 802.11x networks cant > scale > like this is the listen before talk protocol. Even basic polling doesn't > work because the more subs you add, the more latency you add to the > network. > > - > > Jeff > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Mike Hammett > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:34 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > Good efficiencies, not enough throughput per channel, however
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Mike, There is nothing fancy about a switched MAC vs a polled or listen before talk mac. That has very little to do with QOS as much is does with utlizing the pipe appropriately. In a polled system the latency increases with the # of subscriber stations, same with a listen before talk.In a wimax system, the mean latency and customer experience remains the same whether or not there are 30 subs on an AP or 100. Why? Because an inactive subscriber is not polled, and active subscribers are given time slots to transmit / receive on a msec basis. - Jeff -Original Message- From: rea...@muddyfrogwater.us [mailto:rea...@muddyfrogwater.us] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 5:24 PM To: jefftho...@fastmail.fm; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? Many of us can't get away with that. We have to make sure that there's actually bandwidth, not a fancy, 'managed' version of severe oversubscription. - Original Message - From: "Jeff Booher" To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 5:04 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > Mike, > > Many Wimax manufacturers have many operators who have more than 100 subs > per > AP. Our solution supports up to 30k pps, so it can most defintely scale to > this level. > > The Wimax mac was designed for this, bandwidth aside. > > - > > Jeff > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Mike Hammett > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:20 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users on a WiMAX > AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > ---------- > From: "Jeff Booher" > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM > To: "'WISPA General List'" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > >> It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base >> station, >> that only supports 30 subscribers. >> >> - >> >> Jeff >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer >> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> I'm certainly interested in ptmp. >> >> The Tranzeo gear is the same as Aperto isn't it? >> marlon >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Gino Villarini" >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> >>> Ligowave its ptp in 3.65... >>> >>> Might wanna look at tranzeo for 3.65 ptmp >>> >>> >>> Gino A. Villarini >>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >>> Behalf Of Leon Zetekoff >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:32 PM >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>> Hi Marlon...I'd look at the Ligowave stuff similar in principle to the >>> UBNT stuff but I think much better. That's what I'd do today. >>> >>> Take care leon >>> >>> Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >>>> I'm looking into this too. >>>> >>>> So far I can't find a solution for rural towers. A 3 sector install >>>> at $20k? Not to service the 20 people that will be able to even see >>>> that tower >>>> >>>> Anyone have any better ideas? >>>> marlon >>>> >>>> - Original Message - >>>> From: "Gino Villarini" >>>> To: "Motorola Canopy User Group" ; "WISPA General >>> List" >>>> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:55 AM >>>> Subject: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Fellow operators: >>>>> >>>>> Any updates on your experienes with 3.65 gear? PMP and PTP? >>>>> >>>>> Any updates on experiences with: >>>>>
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Sheesh. How many times must this misinformation be posted before the snake oil gets poured down the drain? The better MAC allows you to use a very high percentage of transmission time for actual data throughput, and it manages spreading bandwidth nicely among the oversubscribed. HOWEVER... If you built a 300mbit 802.11 PTMP system, you'd get about 120 total throughput. This means you're using massive amounts of spectrum, but the actual throughput would be higher than ANY WIMAX setup to date. This snake oil about the MAC supposedly violating physics and putting 36mbit through an 18 mbit pipe is nonsense.802.11 sucks because the MAC wastes well over 50% of the airtime doing nothing at all, has absolutely no means of managing bandwidth use or dividing use among the users. However, REAL THROUGHPUT IS REAL THROUGHPUT. If you have an 18 mbit WIMAX you can support 3 clients consuming a little less than 6 each. Add client #4 asking for 6mbit and the the other three MUST LOSE BANDWIDTH TO FEED IT. Get it? So, instead of just under 6 each, if they're all equal priority, all 4 get about 4. Duhh. That's it. You cannot violate physics. The MAC allows greater efficiency concerning airtime and modulation types improve throughput vs spectrum consumption. NOTHING VIOLATES THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. You cannot get 36 through an 18 knothole. Period. You guys are all WAY smarter than this, and it's about time the hype based on comparison of RADIO DATA RATES gets chucked down the toilet. None of us operate that way, and none of care a whit about radio data rates. We're all about real throughput and good management of our our required business model of oversubscription. - Original Message - From: "Jeff Booher" To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 5:06 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > Mike, > > It absolutely has nothing to do with throughput. It has to do with the > scheduling mechanism of the MAC. The reason why 802.11x networks cant > scale > like this is the listen before talk protocol. Even basic polling doesn't > work because the more subs you add, the more latency you add to the > network. > > - > > Jeff > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Mike Hammett > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:34 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > Good efficiencies, not enough throughput per channel, however. > > In one thread in one list we have people complaining about not having > enough > bandwidth to serve their customers now much less next year or the next and > in the other, we have people excited about an AP that only does 18 > megabit. > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > -- > From: "Gino Villarini" > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:24 PM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > >> Not enough? You get 18 mbps in a 7 mhz channel >> >> >> Gino A. Villarini >> g...@aeronetpr.com >> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >> On Behalf Of Mike Hammett >> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:20 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users on a >> WiMAX AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> >> -- >> From: "Jeff Booher" >> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM >> To: "'WISPA General List'" >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >>> It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base >>> station, that only supports 30 subscribers. >>> >>> - >>> >>> Jeff >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message- >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >> On >>> Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>> I'm certainly interested in ptmp. >>> >
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Many of us can't get away with that. We have to make sure that there's actually bandwidth, not a fancy, 'managed' version of severe oversubscription. - Original Message - From: "Jeff Booher" To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 5:04 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > Mike, > > Many Wimax manufacturers have many operators who have more than 100 subs > per > AP. Our solution supports up to 30k pps, so it can most defintely scale to > this level. > > The Wimax mac was designed for this, bandwidth aside. > > - > > Jeff > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Mike Hammett > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:20 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users on a WiMAX > AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > ---------- > From: "Jeff Booher" > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM > To: "'WISPA General List'" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > >> It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base >> station, >> that only supports 30 subscribers. >> >> - >> >> Jeff >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer >> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> I'm certainly interested in ptmp. >> >> The Tranzeo gear is the same as Aperto isn't it? >> marlon >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Gino Villarini" >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> >>> Ligowave its ptp in 3.65... >>> >>> Might wanna look at tranzeo for 3.65 ptmp >>> >>> >>> Gino A. Villarini >>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >>> Behalf Of Leon Zetekoff >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:32 PM >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>> Hi Marlon...I'd look at the Ligowave stuff similar in principle to the >>> UBNT stuff but I think much better. That's what I'd do today. >>> >>> Take care leon >>> >>> Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >>>> I'm looking into this too. >>>> >>>> So far I can't find a solution for rural towers. A 3 sector install >>>> at $20k? Not to service the 20 people that will be able to even see >>>> that tower >>>> >>>> Anyone have any better ideas? >>>> marlon >>>> >>>> - Original Message - >>>> From: "Gino Villarini" >>>> To: "Motorola Canopy User Group" ; "WISPA General >>> List" >>>> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:55 AM >>>> Subject: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Fellow operators: >>>>> >>>>> Any updates on your experienes with 3.65 gear? PMP and PTP? >>>>> >>>>> Any updates on experiences with: >>>>> >>>>> Redline, Aperto, Tranzeo, Vecima, Alvarion, Ligowave, Solectek, >>>>> Airspan ??? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Gino A. Villarini >>>>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>>>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>> >>> >>> >>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Mike, It absolutely has nothing to do with throughput. It has to do with the scheduling mechanism of the MAC. The reason why 802.11x networks cant scale like this is the listen before talk protocol. Even basic polling doesn't work because the more subs you add, the more latency you add to the network. - Jeff -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:34 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? Good efficiencies, not enough throughput per channel, however. In one thread in one list we have people complaining about not having enough bandwidth to serve their customers now much less next year or the next and in the other, we have people excited about an AP that only does 18 megabit. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "Gino Villarini" Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:24 PM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > Not enough? You get 18 mbps in a 7 mhz channel > > > Gino A. Villarini > g...@aeronetpr.com > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. > tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > On Behalf Of Mike Hammett > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:20 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users on a > WiMAX AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > -- > From: "Jeff Booher" > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM > To: "'WISPA General List'" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > >> It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base >> station, that only supports 30 subscribers. >> >> - >> >> Jeff >> >> >> -Original Message----- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > On >> Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer >> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> I'm certainly interested in ptmp. >> >> The Tranzeo gear is the same as Aperto isn't it? >> marlon >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Gino Villarini" >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> >>> Ligowave its ptp in 3.65... >>> >>> Might wanna look at tranzeo for 3.65 ptmp >>> >>> >>> Gino A. Villarini >>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > On >>> Behalf Of Leon Zetekoff >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:32 PM >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>> Hi Marlon...I'd look at the Ligowave stuff similar in principle to > the >>> UBNT stuff but I think much better. That's what I'd do today. >>> >>> Take care leon >>> >>> Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >>>> I'm looking into this too. >>>> >>>> So far I can't find a solution for rural towers. A 3 sector >>>> install at $20k? Not to service the 20 people that will be able to >>>> even see that tower >>>> >>>> Anyone have any better ideas? >>>> marlon >>>> >>>> - Original Message - >>>> From: "Gino Villarini" >>>> To: "Motorola Canopy User Group" ; "WISPA > General >>> List" >>>> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:55 AM >>>> Subject: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Fellow operators: >>>>> >>>>> Any updates on your experienes with 3.65 gear? PMP and PTP? >>>>> >>>>> Any updates on experiences with: >>>>> >>>>> Redline, Aperto, Tranzeo, Vecima, Alvarion, Ligowave, Solectek, >>>>> Airspan ??? >>>>> >>>>
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Mike, Many Wimax manufacturers have many operators who have more than 100 subs per AP. Our solution supports up to 30k pps, so it can most defintely scale to this level. The Wimax mac was designed for this, bandwidth aside. - Jeff -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:20 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users on a WiMAX AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "Jeff Booher" Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM To: "'WISPA General List'" Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base > station, > that only supports 30 subscribers. > > - > > Jeff > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > I'm certainly interested in ptmp. > > The Tranzeo gear is the same as Aperto isn't it? > marlon > > - Original Message ----- > From: "Gino Villarini" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > >> Ligowave its ptp in 3.65... >> >> Might wanna look at tranzeo for 3.65 ptmp >> >> >> Gino A. Villarini >> g...@aeronetpr.com >> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >> >> -----Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Leon Zetekoff >> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:32 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> Hi Marlon...I'd look at the Ligowave stuff similar in principle to the >> UBNT stuff but I think much better. That's what I'd do today. >> >> Take care leon >> >> Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >>> I'm looking into this too. >>> >>> So far I can't find a solution for rural towers. A 3 sector install >>> at $20k? Not to service the 20 people that will be able to even see >>> that tower >>> >>> Anyone have any better ideas? >>> marlon >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Gino Villarini" >>> To: "Motorola Canopy User Group" ; "WISPA General >> List" >>> >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:55 AM >>> Subject: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>> >>> >>>> Fellow operators: >>>> >>>> Any updates on your experienes with 3.65 gear? PMP and PTP? >>>> >>>> Any updates on experiences with: >>>> >>>> Redline, Aperto, Tranzeo, Vecima, Alvarion, Ligowave, Solectek, >>>> Airspan ??? >>>> >>>> >>>> Gino A. Villarini >>>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>>> >> >> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> >> >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> > > >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ >
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
H, I know a user in the Caribbean that has a couple hundred users on a 5MHz wide channel that 'only' supports 12 Mbs TDD. Works great for his modeled plans with voip and smaller data plans best effort. But heck if I put one user on a 6x6 Mb plan and they suck it all up then I would only put one user on right. The point here is you cannot set numbers of Subscriber Stations(SS) per Base Station sectors based on a quantities' number but rather actual sold; Best Effort(BE), nRT(non real time), RT(Real Time) and UGS(unsolicited grant service); services. Making a broad statement like I would only put 30 clients on one WiMAX base station because of lack of bandwidth is just not accurate with the QoS settings now available in the radios... 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 Mike Hammett Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users on a WiMAX AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "Jeff Booher" Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM To: "'WISPA General List'" Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base > station, > that only supports 30 subscribers. > > - > > Jeff > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > I'm certainly interested in ptmp. > > The Tranzeo gear is the same as Aperto isn't it? > marlon > > - Original Message ----- > From: "Gino Villarini" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > >> Ligowave its ptp in 3.65... >> >> Might wanna look at tranzeo for 3.65 ptmp >> >> >> Gino A. Villarini >> g...@aeronetpr.com >> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >> >> -----Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Leon Zetekoff >> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:32 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> Hi Marlon...I'd look at the Ligowave stuff similar in principle to the >> UBNT stuff but I think much better. That's what I'd do today. >> >> Take care leon >> >> Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >>> I'm looking into this too. >>> >>> So far I can't find a solution for rural towers. A 3 sector install >>> at $20k? Not to service the 20 people that will be able to even see >>> that tower >>> >>> Anyone have any better ideas? >>> marlon >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Gino Villarini" >>> To: "Motorola Canopy User Group" ; "WISPA General >> List" >>> >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:55 AM >>> Subject: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>> >>> >>>> Fellow operators: >>>> >>>> Any updates on your experienes with 3.65 gear? PMP and PTP? >>>> >>>> Any updates on experiences with: >>>> >>>> Redline, Aperto, Tranzeo, Vecima, Alvarion, Ligowave, Solectek, >>>> Airspan ??? >>>> >>>> >>>> Gino A. Villarini >>>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>>> >> >> >>
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
I am happy for you in your business, that's why I try to connect you with other WISPs as often as I can. However, I started my company because I didn't have broadband at my house. My neighbor didn't have broadband. I sure as hell wasn't going to pay $500/month for it. WiMAX certainly has its places, but residential broadband isn't one of them. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "Matt Liotta" Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:01 PM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > Maybe the equipment isn't the problem then. > > -Matt > > On Mar 19, 2009, at 2:49 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: > >> You're not going to get that in the residential market, which is >> where most >> of us compete. >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> >> ---------- >> From: "Matt Liotta" >> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:39 PM >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >>> We are seeing around $500 ARPU and on average 6 customers deployed >>> per 7Mhz channel with our RedMax basestations. I see no reason to >>> complain. >>> >>> -Matt >>> >>> On Mar 19, 2009, at 2:33 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: >>> >>>> Good efficiencies, not enough throughput per channel, however. >>>> >>>> In one thread in one list we have people complaining about not >>>> having enough >>>> bandwidth to serve their customers now much less next year or the >>>> next and >>>> in the other, we have people excited about an AP that only does 18 >>>> megabit. >>>> >>>> >>>> - >>>> Mike Hammett >>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>>> http://www.ics-il.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> From: "Gino Villarini" >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:24 PM >>>> To: "WISPA General List" >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>> >>>>> Not enough? You get 18 mbps in a 7 mhz channel >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Gino A. Villarini >>>>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>>>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- >>>>> boun...@wispa.org] On >>>>> Behalf Of Mike Hammett >>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:20 PM >>>>> To: WISPA General List >>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>>> >>>>> More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users >>>>> on a >>>>> WiMAX AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> - >>>>> Mike Hammett >>>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>>>> http://www.ics-il.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> From: "Jeff Booher" >>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM >>>>> To: "'WISPA General List'" >>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>>> >>>>>> It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base >>>>>> station, >>>>>> that only supports 30 subscribers. >>>>>> >>>>>> - >>>>>> >>>>>> Jeff >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -Original Message- >>>>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org >>>>>> ] >>>>> On >>>>>> Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM >>>>>> To: WISPA General List >>>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm certainly interested in ptmp. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Tranzeo gear is
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
So in the world of Netflix, ABC, FOX, NBC, etc. using multiple megabits of bandwidth for hours at a time (often at the same time of other users), tell me how well that's going to work? QoS and fanciness means nothing if you're trying to stuff 30 megs in an 18 meg pipe. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "Patrick Leary" Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:52 PM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > That's nuts Mike. I know numerous examples where the numbers are very > high. Simply depends on what you are selling, like it always has. In > general though, it is probably a fair point to say that how ever many > customers you can get on a WISP model for a given capacity, double the > number of customers for the same service and same same capacity in the > WiMAX world. > > > Patrick Leary > Aperto Networks > 813.426.4230 mobile > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Mike Hammett > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:20 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users on a > WiMAX AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > -------------- > From: "Jeff Booher" > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM > To: "'WISPA General List'" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > >> It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base >> station, >> that only supports 30 subscribers. >> >> - >> >> Jeff >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > On >> Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer >> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> I'm certainly interested in ptmp. >> >> The Tranzeo gear is the same as Aperto isn't it? >> marlon >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Gino Villarini" >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> >>> Ligowave its ptp in 3.65... >>> >>> Might wanna look at tranzeo for 3.65 ptmp >>> >>> >>> Gino A. Villarini >>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > On >>> Behalf Of Leon Zetekoff >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:32 PM >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>> Hi Marlon...I'd look at the Ligowave stuff similar in principle to > the >>> UBNT stuff but I think much better. That's what I'd do today. >>> >>> Take care leon >>> >>> Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >>>> I'm looking into this too. >>>> >>>> So far I can't find a solution for rural towers. A 3 sector install >>>> at $20k? Not to service the 20 people that will be able to even see >>>> that tower >>>> >>>> Anyone have any better ideas? >>>> marlon >>>> >>>> - Original Message - >>>> From: "Gino Villarini" >>>> To: "Motorola Canopy User Group" ; "WISPA > General >>> List" >>>> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:55 AM >>>> Subject: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Fellow operators: >>>>> >>>>> Any updates on your experienes with 3.65 gear? PMP and PTP? >>>>> >>>>> Any updates on experiences with: >>>>> >>>>> Redline, Aperto, Tranzeo, Vecima, Alvarion, Ligowave, Solectek, >>>>> Airspan ??? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Gino A. Villarini >>>>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>>>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.2
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
On Mar 19, 2009, at 3:18 PM, Chuck Bartosch wrote: > However, that (obviously) means it's not particularly viable in many > situations where you don't see enough customers to support a wimax > base station. But because 3.65 with diversity is supposed to deliver > NLOS performance similar to or better than 900 MHz, you can see > customers you wouldn't otherwise see. > I can tell you for a fact that even with uplink subchannelization, diversity, and all of WiMAX's OFDM subcarriers, 3.65 does not deliver NLOS performance similar to or better than 900Mhz. Throw all the technology you want at it and 3.65 is still not going to get through much foliage. NLOS performance in an urban environment on the other hand is great. -Matt 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] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
My understanding is, it's a little more complex than that. With wimax prioritization and scheduling, the customer experience is similar to what they'd get at 2 or 3 times the normal bandwidth. In other words, the customer experience, given a 3 Mbps by 2 Mbps connection on wimax gives performance similar to a 5.8 connection at 6 to 9 Mbps down by 4 to 6 Mbps up. And, because of the prioritization and scheduling, where you might be able to support 100 customers, you can support 200 to 300 customers on a base station. The price for the wimax equipment is about 3x what it is for normal 5.8 equipment so the price per customer on a fully loaded base station is about the same. However, that (obviously) means it's not particularly viable in many situations where you don't see enough customers to support a wimax base station. But because 3.65 with diversity is supposed to deliver NLOS performance similar to or better than 900 MHz, you can see customers you wouldn't otherwise see. And of course, it's clean spectrum. So, it isn't a simply question. It will be great for some, useless for others. But I think it's useful for more situations than people think it is. Chuck On Mar 19, 2009, at 2:33 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: > Good efficiencies, not enough throughput per channel, however. > > In one thread in one list we have people complaining about not > having enough > bandwidth to serve their customers now much less next year or the > next and > in the other, we have people excited about an AP that only does 18 > megabit. > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > -- > From: "Gino Villarini" > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:24 PM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > >> Not enough? You get 18 mbps in a 7 mhz channel >> >> >> Gino A. Villarini >> g...@aeronetpr.com >> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- >> boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Mike Hammett >> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:20 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users on a >> WiMAX AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> >> -- >> From: "Jeff Booher" >> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM >> To: "'WISPA General List'" >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >>> It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base >>> station, >>> that only supports 30 subscribers. >>> >>> - >>> >>> Jeff >>> >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >> On >>> Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>> I'm certainly interested in ptmp. >>> >>> The Tranzeo gear is the same as Aperto isn't it? >>> marlon >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Gino Villarini" >>> To: "WISPA General List" >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 PM >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>> >>>> Ligowave its ptp in 3.65... >>>> >>>> Might wanna look at tranzeo for 3.65 ptmp >>>> >>>> >>>> Gino A. Villarini >>>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>>> >>>> -Original Message- >>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- >>>> boun...@wispa.org] >> On >>>> Behalf Of Leon Zetekoff >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:32 PM >>>> To: WISPA General List >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>> >>>> Hi Marlon...I'd look at the Ligowave stuff similar in principle to >> the >>>> UBNT stuff but I think much better. That's what I'd do today. >>>> &
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
That's nuts Mike. I know numerous examples where the numbers are very high. Simply depends on what you are selling, like it always has. In general though, it is probably a fair point to say that how ever many customers you can get on a WISP model for a given capacity, double the number of customers for the same service and same same capacity in the WiMAX world. Patrick Leary Aperto Networks 813.426.4230 mobile -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:20 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users on a WiMAX AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "Jeff Booher" Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM To: "'WISPA General List'" Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base > station, > that only supports 30 subscribers. > > - > > Jeff > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > I'm certainly interested in ptmp. > > The Tranzeo gear is the same as Aperto isn't it? > marlon > > - Original Message ----- > From: "Gino Villarini" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > >> Ligowave its ptp in 3.65... >> >> Might wanna look at tranzeo for 3.65 ptmp >> >> >> Gino A. Villarini >> g...@aeronetpr.com >> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Leon Zetekoff >> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:32 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> Hi Marlon...I'd look at the Ligowave stuff similar in principle to the >> UBNT stuff but I think much better. That's what I'd do today. >> >> Take care leon >> >> Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >>> I'm looking into this too. >>> >>> So far I can't find a solution for rural towers. A 3 sector install >>> at $20k? Not to service the 20 people that will be able to even see >>> that tower >>> >>> Anyone have any better ideas? >>> marlon >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Gino Villarini" >>> To: "Motorola Canopy User Group" ; "WISPA General >> List" >>> >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:55 AM >>> Subject: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>> >>> >>>> Fellow operators: >>>> >>>> Any updates on your experienes with 3.65 gear? PMP and PTP? >>>> >>>> Any updates on experiences with: >>>> >>>> Redline, Aperto, Tranzeo, Vecima, Alvarion, Ligowave, Solectek, >>>> Airspan ??? >>>> >>>> >>>> Gino A. Villarini >>>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>>> >> >> >> >> >> 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] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Take a look at SkyPilot gear, it seems to have all the advantages of Wimax, plus some benefits. 28 W PTMP in the 5+ Ghz bands, TDD, low cost cpe's. Only thing it really lacks, and is also a downfall of Wimax is the radio as a Demarc (Routing/Nat/PPPoE). Regards Michael Baird > Good efficiencies, not enough throughput per channel, however. > > In one thread in one list we have people complaining about not having enough > bandwidth to serve their customers now much less next year or the next and > in the other, we have people excited about an AP that only does 18 megabit. > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > -- > From: "Gino Villarini" > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:24 PM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > >> Not enough? You get 18 mbps in a 7 mhz channel >> >> >> Gino A. Villarini >> g...@aeronetpr.com >> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Mike Hammett >> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:20 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users on a >> WiMAX AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> >> -- >> From: "Jeff Booher" >> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM >> To: "'WISPA General List'" >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> >>> It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base >>> station, >>> that only supports 30 subscribers. >>> >>> - >>> >>> Jeff >>> >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >>> >> On >> >>> Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>> I'm certainly interested in ptmp. >>> >>> The Tranzeo gear is the same as Aperto isn't it? >>> marlon >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Gino Villarini" >>> To: "WISPA General List" >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 PM >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>> >>> >>>> Ligowave its ptp in 3.65... >>>> >>>> Might wanna look at tranzeo for 3.65 ptmp >>>> >>>> >>>> Gino A. Villarini >>>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>>> >>>> -Original Message- >>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >>>> >> On >> >>>> Behalf Of Leon Zetekoff >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:32 PM >>>> To: WISPA General List >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>> >>>> Hi Marlon...I'd look at the Ligowave stuff similar in principle to >>>> >> the >> >>>> UBNT stuff but I think much better. That's what I'd do today. >>>> >>>> Take care leon >>>> >>>> Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm looking into this too. >>>>> >>>>> So far I can't find a solution for rural towers. A 3 sector install >>>>> at $20k? Not to service the 20 people that will be able to even see >>>>> that tower >>>>> >>>>> Anyone have any better ideas? >>>>> marlon >>>>> >>>>> - Original Message - >>>>> From: "Gino Villarini" >>>>> To: "Motorola Canopy User Group" ; "WISPA >>>>> >> General >> >>>> List" >>>> >&g
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
How do you do that, Patrick? Seriously, 18 mbit is 18 mbit. It isn't magically 36 because it has the word 'wimax' attached to it. Now, we do understand the technical improvements from better MAC's, but that has mostly translated to narrower channels, not more throughput. Even if you do FIBER, but your "choke point", where everything comes down to a single pipe, be it a router, feed, AP, etc, data is data, it doesn't magically shrink because you label "wimax" on the device.Because we don't talk in "radio rate" but "AP to client throughput aggregate totals", it doesn't matter if it's wimax, bpl, 802.11 or some totally proprietary unknown system. Data transfer limits are data transfer limits, and if you need to keep 30 clients going all at the same time with at least 1 meg, it ain't going to happen with an 18M feed point, even if the "wimax" word is printed, taped, labelled, or scratched onto the device. - Original Message - From: "Patrick Leary" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:52 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > That's nuts Mike. I know numerous examples where the numbers are very > high. Simply depends on what you are selling, like it always has. In > general though, it is probably a fair point to say that how ever many > customers you can get on a WISP model for a given capacity, double the > number of customers for the same service and same same capacity in the > WiMAX world. > > > Patrick Leary > Aperto Networks > 813.426.4230 mobile > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Mike Hammett > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:20 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users on a > WiMAX AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > -- > From: "Jeff Booher" > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM > To: "'WISPA General List'" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > >> It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base >> station, >> that only supports 30 subscribers. >> >> - >> >> Jeff >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > On >> Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer >> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> I'm certainly interested in ptmp. >> >> The Tranzeo gear is the same as Aperto isn't it? >> marlon >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Gino Villarini" >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> >>> Ligowave its ptp in 3.65... >>> >>> Might wanna look at tranzeo for 3.65 ptmp >>> >>> >>> Gino A. Villarini >>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > On >>> Behalf Of Leon Zetekoff >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:32 PM >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>> Hi Marlon...I'd look at the Ligowave stuff similar in principle to > the >>> UBNT stuff but I think much better. That's what I'd do today. >>> >>> Take care leon >>> >>> Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >>>> I'm looking into this too. >>>> >>>> So far I can't find a solution for rural towers. A 3 sector install >>>> at $20k? Not to service the 20 people that will be able to even see >>>> that tower >>>> >>>> Anyone have any better ideas? >>>> marlon >>>> >>>> - Original Message - >>>> From: "Gino Villarini" >>>> To: "Motorola Canopy User Group" ; "WISPA > General >>> List" >>>> >>>> Sent: Wed
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
my average per customer is around $33/mo - Original Message - From: "Mike Hammett" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:49 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > You're not going to get that in the residential market, which is where > most > of us compete. > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > -- > From: "Matt Liotta" > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:39 PM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > >> We are seeing around $500 ARPU and on average 6 customers deployed >> per 7Mhz channel with our RedMax basestations. I see no reason to >> complain. >> >> -Matt >> >> On Mar 19, 2009, at 2:33 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: >> >>> Good efficiencies, not enough throughput per channel, however. >>> >>> In one thread in one list we have people complaining about not >>> having enough >>> bandwidth to serve their customers now much less next year or the >>> next and >>> in the other, we have people excited about an AP that only does 18 >>> megabit. >>> >>> >>> - >>> Mike Hammett >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>> http://www.ics-il.com >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> From: "Gino Villarini" >>> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:24 PM >>> To: "WISPA General List" >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>>> Not enough? You get 18 mbps in a 7 mhz channel >>>> >>>> >>>> Gino A. Villarini >>>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>>> >>>> -Original Message- >>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- >>>> boun...@wispa.org] On >>>> Behalf Of Mike Hammett >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:20 PM >>>> To: WISPA General List >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>> >>>> More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users on a >>>> WiMAX AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. >>>> >>>> >>>> - >>>> Mike Hammett >>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>>> http://www.ics-il.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> From: "Jeff Booher" >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM >>>> To: "'WISPA General List'" >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>> >>>>> It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base >>>>> station, >>>>> that only supports 30 subscribers. >>>>> >>>>> - >>>>> >>>>> Jeff >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -Original Message- >>>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >>>> On >>>>> Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM >>>>> To: WISPA General List >>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>>> >>>>> I'm certainly interested in ptmp. >>>>> >>>>> The Tranzeo gear is the same as Aperto isn't it? >>>>> marlon >>>>> >>>>> - Original Message - >>>>> From: "Gino Villarini" >>>>> To: "WISPA General List" >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Ligowave its ptp in 3.65... >>>>>> >>>>>> Might wanna look at tranzeo for 3.65 ptmp >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Gino A. Villarini >>>>>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>>>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>>>>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>>>>> >>>>>> -Original Message
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Maybe the equipment isn't the problem then. -Matt On Mar 19, 2009, at 2:49 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: > You're not going to get that in the residential market, which is > where most > of us compete. > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > -- > From: "Matt Liotta" > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:39 PM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > >> We are seeing around $500 ARPU and on average 6 customers deployed >> per 7Mhz channel with our RedMax basestations. I see no reason to >> complain. >> >> -Matt >> >> On Mar 19, 2009, at 2:33 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: >> >>> Good efficiencies, not enough throughput per channel, however. >>> >>> In one thread in one list we have people complaining about not >>> having enough >>> bandwidth to serve their customers now much less next year or the >>> next and >>> in the other, we have people excited about an AP that only does 18 >>> megabit. >>> >>> >>> - >>> Mike Hammett >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>> http://www.ics-il.com >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> From: "Gino Villarini" >>> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:24 PM >>> To: "WISPA General List" >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>>> Not enough? You get 18 mbps in a 7 mhz channel >>>> >>>> >>>> Gino A. Villarini >>>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>>> >>>> -Original Message- >>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- >>>> boun...@wispa.org] On >>>> Behalf Of Mike Hammett >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:20 PM >>>> To: WISPA General List >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>> >>>> More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users >>>> on a >>>> WiMAX AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. >>>> >>>> >>>> - >>>> Mike Hammett >>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>>> http://www.ics-il.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> From: "Jeff Booher" >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM >>>> To: "'WISPA General List'" >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>> >>>>> It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base >>>>> station, >>>>> that only supports 30 subscribers. >>>>> >>>>> - >>>>> >>>>> Jeff >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -Original Message- >>>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org >>>>> ] >>>> On >>>>> Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM >>>>> To: WISPA General List >>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>>> >>>>> I'm certainly interested in ptmp. >>>>> >>>>> The Tranzeo gear is the same as Aperto isn't it? >>>>> marlon >>>>> >>>>> - Original Message - >>>>> From: "Gino Villarini" >>>>> To: "WISPA General List" >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Ligowave its ptp in 3.65... >>>>>> >>>>>> Might wanna look at tranzeo for 3.65 ptmp >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Gino A. Villarini >>>>>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>>>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>>>>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>>>>> >>>>>> -Original Message- >>>>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- >>>>>> boun...@wispa.org] >>>> On >>>>>> Behalf Of Leon Zeteko
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
You're not going to get that in the residential market, which is where most of us compete. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "Matt Liotta" Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:39 PM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > We are seeing around $500 ARPU and on average 6 customers deployed > per 7Mhz channel with our RedMax basestations. I see no reason to > complain. > > -Matt > > On Mar 19, 2009, at 2:33 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: > >> Good efficiencies, not enough throughput per channel, however. >> >> In one thread in one list we have people complaining about not >> having enough >> bandwidth to serve their customers now much less next year or the >> next and >> in the other, we have people excited about an AP that only does 18 >> megabit. >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> >> -------------- >> From: "Gino Villarini" >> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:24 PM >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >>> Not enough? You get 18 mbps in a 7 mhz channel >>> >>> >>> Gino A. Villarini >>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- >>> boun...@wispa.org] On >>> Behalf Of Mike Hammett >>> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:20 PM >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>> More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users on a >>> WiMAX AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. >>> >>> >>> - >>> Mike Hammett >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>> http://www.ics-il.com >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> From: "Jeff Booher" >>> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM >>> To: "'WISPA General List'" >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>>> It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base >>>> station, >>>> that only supports 30 subscribers. >>>> >>>> - >>>> >>>> Jeff >>>> >>>> >>>> -Original Message- >>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >>> On >>>> Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM >>>> To: WISPA General List >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>> >>>> I'm certainly interested in ptmp. >>>> >>>> The Tranzeo gear is the same as Aperto isn't it? >>>> marlon >>>> >>>> - Original Message - >>>> From: "Gino Villarini" >>>> To: "WISPA General List" >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>> >>>> >>>>> Ligowave its ptp in 3.65... >>>>> >>>>> Might wanna look at tranzeo for 3.65 ptmp >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Gino A. Villarini >>>>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>>>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>>>> >>>>> -Original Message- >>>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- >>>>> boun...@wispa.org] >>> On >>>>> Behalf Of Leon Zetekoff >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:32 PM >>>>> To: WISPA General List >>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>>> >>>>> Hi Marlon...I'd look at the Ligowave stuff similar in principle to >>> the >>>>> UBNT stuff but I think much better. That's what I'd do today. >>>>> >>>>> Take care leon >>>>> >>>>> Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >>>>>> I'm looking into this too. >>>>>> >>>>>> So far I can't find a s
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
I can get 12 to 18 mbit off my 5 ghz AP's, and with customers limited to 2Mbit, I'm still bumping into limits in the 30 - 45 range per AP, and even then, I consider it oversubscribed. Now, 18mbit throughput in 7 mhz is great... But how good does the signal have to be, and when the signals degrade due to distance or... How much effect does this have? What's the distance you can do 18? 2 miles? 4 miles? I need 25 miles... I can't even GO 25 miles decently with 3.65, due to eirp limits. - Original Message - From: "Mike Hammett" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:33 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > Good efficiencies, not enough throughput per channel, however. > > In one thread in one list we have people complaining about not having > enough > bandwidth to serve their customers now much less next year or the next and > in the other, we have people excited about an AP that only does 18 > megabit. > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > -- > From: "Gino Villarini" > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:24 PM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > >> Not enough? You get 18 mbps in a 7 mhz channel >> >> >> Gino A. Villarini >> g...@aeronetpr.com >> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Mike Hammett >> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:20 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users on a >> WiMAX AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> >> -- >> From: "Jeff Booher" >> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM >> To: "'WISPA General List'" >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >>> It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base >>> station, >>> that only supports 30 subscribers. >>> >>> - >>> >>> Jeff >>> >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >> On >>> Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>> I'm certainly interested in ptmp. >>> >>> The Tranzeo gear is the same as Aperto isn't it? >>> marlon >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Gino Villarini" >>> To: "WISPA General List" >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 PM >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>> >>>> Ligowave its ptp in 3.65... >>>> >>>> Might wanna look at tranzeo for 3.65 ptmp >>>> >>>> >>>> Gino A. Villarini >>>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>>> >>>> -Original Message- >>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >> On >>>> Behalf Of Leon Zetekoff >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:32 PM >>>> To: WISPA General List >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>> >>>> Hi Marlon...I'd look at the Ligowave stuff similar in principle to >> the >>>> UBNT stuff but I think much better. That's what I'd do today. >>>> >>>> Take care leon >>>> >>>> Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >>>>> I'm looking into this too. >>>>> >>>>> So far I can't find a solution for rural towers. A 3 sector install >>>>> at $20k? Not to service the 20 people that will be able to even see >>>>> that tower >>>>> >>>>> Anyone have any better ideas? >>>>> marlon >>>>> >>>>
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
We are seeing around $500 ARPU and on average 6 customers deployed per 7Mhz channel with our RedMax basestations. I see no reason to complain. -Matt On Mar 19, 2009, at 2:33 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: > Good efficiencies, not enough throughput per channel, however. > > In one thread in one list we have people complaining about not > having enough > bandwidth to serve their customers now much less next year or the > next and > in the other, we have people excited about an AP that only does 18 > megabit. > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > -- > From: "Gino Villarini" > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:24 PM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > >> Not enough? You get 18 mbps in a 7 mhz channel >> >> >> Gino A. Villarini >> g...@aeronetpr.com >> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- >> boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Mike Hammett >> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:20 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users on a >> WiMAX AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> >> -- >> From: "Jeff Booher" >> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM >> To: "'WISPA General List'" >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >>> It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base >>> station, >>> that only supports 30 subscribers. >>> >>> - >>> >>> Jeff >>> >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >> On >>> Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>> I'm certainly interested in ptmp. >>> >>> The Tranzeo gear is the same as Aperto isn't it? >>> marlon >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Gino Villarini" >>> To: "WISPA General List" >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 PM >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>> >>>> Ligowave its ptp in 3.65... >>>> >>>> Might wanna look at tranzeo for 3.65 ptmp >>>> >>>> >>>> Gino A. Villarini >>>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>>> >>>> -Original Message- >>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- >>>> boun...@wispa.org] >> On >>>> Behalf Of Leon Zetekoff >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:32 PM >>>> To: WISPA General List >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>> >>>> Hi Marlon...I'd look at the Ligowave stuff similar in principle to >> the >>>> UBNT stuff but I think much better. That's what I'd do today. >>>> >>>> Take care leon >>>> >>>> Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >>>>> I'm looking into this too. >>>>> >>>>> So far I can't find a solution for rural towers. A 3 sector >>>>> install >>>>> at $20k? Not to service the 20 people that will be able to even >>>>> see >>>>> that tower >>>>> >>>>> Anyone have any better ideas? >>>>> marlon >>>>> >>>>> - Original Message - >>>>> From: "Gino Villarini" >>>>> To: "Motorola Canopy User Group" ; "WISPA >> General >>>> List" >>>>> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:55 AM >>>>> Subject: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Fellow operators: >>>>>>
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Good efficiencies, not enough throughput per channel, however. In one thread in one list we have people complaining about not having enough bandwidth to serve their customers now much less next year or the next and in the other, we have people excited about an AP that only does 18 megabit. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "Gino Villarini" Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:24 PM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > Not enough? You get 18 mbps in a 7 mhz channel > > > Gino A. Villarini > g...@aeronetpr.com > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. > tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Mike Hammett > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:20 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users on a > WiMAX AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > -- > From: "Jeff Booher" > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM > To: "'WISPA General List'" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > >> It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base >> station, >> that only supports 30 subscribers. >> >> - >> >> Jeff >> >> >> -Original Message----- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > On >> Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer >> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> I'm certainly interested in ptmp. >> >> The Tranzeo gear is the same as Aperto isn't it? >> marlon >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Gino Villarini" >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> >>> Ligowave its ptp in 3.65... >>> >>> Might wanna look at tranzeo for 3.65 ptmp >>> >>> >>> Gino A. Villarini >>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > On >>> Behalf Of Leon Zetekoff >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:32 PM >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>> Hi Marlon...I'd look at the Ligowave stuff similar in principle to > the >>> UBNT stuff but I think much better. That's what I'd do today. >>> >>> Take care leon >>> >>> Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >>>> I'm looking into this too. >>>> >>>> So far I can't find a solution for rural towers. A 3 sector install >>>> at $20k? Not to service the 20 people that will be able to even see >>>> that tower >>>> >>>> Anyone have any better ideas? >>>> marlon >>>> >>>> - Original Message - >>>> From: "Gino Villarini" >>>> To: "Motorola Canopy User Group" ; "WISPA > General >>> List" >>>> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:55 AM >>>> Subject: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Fellow operators: >>>>> >>>>> Any updates on your experienes with 3.65 gear? PMP and PTP? >>>>> >>>>> Any updates on experiences with: >>>>> >>>>> Redline, Aperto, Tranzeo, Vecima, Alvarion, Ligowave, Solectek, >>>>> Airspan ??? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Gino A. Villarini >>>>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>>>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > >>> >>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>> >
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Not enough? You get 18 mbps in a 7 mhz channel Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users on a WiMAX AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "Jeff Booher" Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM To: "'WISPA General List'" Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base > station, > that only supports 30 subscribers. > > - > > Jeff > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > I'm certainly interested in ptmp. > > The Tranzeo gear is the same as Aperto isn't it? > marlon > > - Original Message ----- > From: "Gino Villarini" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > >> Ligowave its ptp in 3.65... >> >> Might wanna look at tranzeo for 3.65 ptmp >> >> >> Gino A. Villarini >> g...@aeronetpr.com >> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >> >> -----Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Leon Zetekoff >> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:32 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> Hi Marlon...I'd look at the Ligowave stuff similar in principle to the >> UBNT stuff but I think much better. That's what I'd do today. >> >> Take care leon >> >> Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >>> I'm looking into this too. >>> >>> So far I can't find a solution for rural towers. A 3 sector install >>> at $20k? Not to service the 20 people that will be able to even see >>> that tower >>> >>> Anyone have any better ideas? >>> marlon >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Gino Villarini" >>> To: "Motorola Canopy User Group" ; "WISPA General >> List" >>> >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:55 AM >>> Subject: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>> >>> >>>> Fellow operators: >>>> >>>> Any updates on your experienes with 3.65 gear? PMP and PTP? >>>> >>>> Any updates on experiences with: >>>> >>>> Redline, Aperto, Tranzeo, Vecima, Alvarion, Ligowave, Solectek, >>>> Airspan ??? >>>> >>>> >>>> Gino A. Villarini >>>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>>> >> >> >> >> >> 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 > >
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users on a WiMAX AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "Jeff Booher" Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM To: "'WISPA General List'" Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base > station, > that only supports 30 subscribers. > > - > > Jeff > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > I'm certainly interested in ptmp. > > The Tranzeo gear is the same as Aperto isn't it? > marlon > > - Original Message ----- > From: "Gino Villarini" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > >> Ligowave its ptp in 3.65... >> >> Might wanna look at tranzeo for 3.65 ptmp >> >> >> Gino A. Villarini >> g...@aeronetpr.com >> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >> >> -----Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Leon Zetekoff >> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:32 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> Hi Marlon...I'd look at the Ligowave stuff similar in principle to the >> UBNT stuff but I think much better. That's what I'd do today. >> >> Take care leon >> >> Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >>> I'm looking into this too. >>> >>> So far I can't find a solution for rural towers. A 3 sector install >>> at $20k? Not to service the 20 people that will be able to even see >>> that tower >>> >>> Anyone have any better ideas? >>> marlon >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Gino Villarini" >>> To: "Motorola Canopy User Group" ; "WISPA General >> List" >>> >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:55 AM >>> Subject: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>> >>> >>>> Fellow operators: >>>> >>>> Any updates on your experienes with 3.65 gear? PMP and PTP? >>>> >>>> Any updates on experiences with: >>>> >>>> Redline, Aperto, Tranzeo, Vecima, Alvarion, Ligowave, Solectek, >>>> Airspan ??? >>>> >>>> >>>> Gino A. Villarini >>>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>>> >> >> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> >> >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> > > >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Biggest problem with using a 3 sector configuration on tranzeo is they have no snyc, and because You only have 25mhz to play with, you end up seeing RF issues due to needing at least 14mhz Of seperation without snyc. - Jeff -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Richey Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:52 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? The APs are around $1600-1700 and CPEs are in the $250-300 ballpark. The AP will handle 30 subs and they have a BAM/PRIZIM type server you can use to provision SMs or you can do it the old way.Their thought is once you hit 90 users with 3 sectors you will probably be ready to upgrade to a bigger base station. Richey From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Brian Rohrbacher Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 10:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? How much is the tranzeo stuff going for? AP and CPE? Gino Villarini wrote: Ligowave its ptp in 3.65... Might wanna look at tranzeo for 3.65 ptmp Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Leon Zetekoff Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? Hi Marlon...I'd look at the Ligowave stuff similar in principle to the UBNT stuff but I think much better. That's what I'd do today. Take care leon Marlon K. Schafer wrote: I'm looking into this too. So far I can't find a solution for rural towers. A 3 sector install at $20k? Not to service the 20 people that will be able to even see that tower Anyone have any better ideas? marlon - Original Message - From: "Gino Villarini" <mailto:g...@aeronetpr.com> To: "Motorola Canopy User Group" <mailto:motor...@wispa.org> ; "WISPA General List" <mailto:wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:55 AM Subject: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? Fellow operators: Any updates on your experienes with 3.65 gear? PMP and PTP? Any updates on experiences with: Redline, Aperto, Tranzeo, Vecima, Alvarion, Ligowave, Solectek, Airspan ??? Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 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] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base station, that only supports 30 subscribers. - Jeff -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? I'm certainly interested in ptmp. The Tranzeo gear is the same as Aperto isn't it? marlon - Original Message - From: "Gino Villarini" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > Ligowave its ptp in 3.65... > > Might wanna look at tranzeo for 3.65 ptmp > > > Gino A. Villarini > g...@aeronetpr.com > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. > tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Leon Zetekoff > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:32 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > Hi Marlon...I'd look at the Ligowave stuff similar in principle to the > UBNT stuff but I think much better. That's what I'd do today. > > Take care leon > > Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >> I'm looking into this too. >> >> So far I can't find a solution for rural towers. A 3 sector install >> at $20k? Not to service the 20 people that will be able to even see >> that tower >> >> Anyone have any better ideas? >> marlon >> >> ----- Original Message - >> From: "Gino Villarini" >> To: "Motorola Canopy User Group" ; "WISPA General > List" >> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:55 AM >> Subject: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >> >> >> >>> Fellow operators: >>> >>> Any updates on your experienes with 3.65 gear? PMP and PTP? >>> >>> Any updates on experiences with: >>> >>> Redline, Aperto, Tranzeo, Vecima, Alvarion, Ligowave, Solectek, >>> Airspan ??? >>> >>> >>> Gino A. Villarini >>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>> > > > > > 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] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Marlon I checked the map, and like me, Odessa is within the 150km satellite exclusion zone for the station located in Brewster. From what I've read you need to get their permission to operate anything in the 3.65GHz spectrum. I just applied for our 3.65GHz licnse so I haven't heard anything yet. If you want I have a .kmz file I can send you with the exclusion zone. Marlon K. Schafer wrote: > Thanks! > marlon > > - Original Message - > From: "John Valenti" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 7:05 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > > >> Marlon, >> >> I watched the tranzeo wimax 3.65 webinar a few weeks back. They have >> that pico base station for about $1700. I asked, and they said yes, it >> would work with an omni. I know everybody says don't use an omni, but >> maybe it would be OK on 3.65? >> >> I was curious because most of my grain legs would max out at 20 >> customers (due to trees). And I certainly wouldn't want to buy three >> sectors just to support 20 houses. >> >> They do have a starter kit that includes two(?) customer radios for >> free. I'm out of money for testing things, but let us know if you try >> it. >> -John >> >> PS - they can sync multiple base stations from a central server. >> >> >> On Mar 18, 2009, at 9:27 PM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >> >> >>> I'm looking into this too. >>> >>> So far I can't find a solution for rural towers. A 3 sector install >>> at >>> $20k? Not to service the 20 people that will be able to even see that >>> tower >>> >>> Anyone have any better ideas? >>> marlon >>> >> >> >> 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] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Thanks! marlon - Original Message - From: "John Valenti" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 7:05 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > Marlon, > > I watched the tranzeo wimax 3.65 webinar a few weeks back. They have > that pico base station for about $1700. I asked, and they said yes, it > would work with an omni. I know everybody says don't use an omni, but > maybe it would be OK on 3.65? > > I was curious because most of my grain legs would max out at 20 > customers (due to trees). And I certainly wouldn't want to buy three > sectors just to support 20 houses. > > They do have a starter kit that includes two(?) customer radios for > free. I'm out of money for testing things, but let us know if you try > it. > -John > > PS - they can sync multiple base stations from a central server. > > > On Mar 18, 2009, at 9:27 PM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: > >> I'm looking into this too. >> >> So far I can't find a solution for rural towers. A 3 sector install >> at >> $20k? Not to service the 20 people that will be able to even see that >> tower >> >> Anyone have any better ideas? >> marlon > > > > > 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] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Marlon, I watched the tranzeo wimax 3.65 webinar a few weeks back. They have that pico base station for about $1700. I asked, and they said yes, it would work with an omni. I know everybody says don't use an omni, but maybe it would be OK on 3.65? I was curious because most of my grain legs would max out at 20 customers (due to trees). And I certainly wouldn't want to buy three sectors just to support 20 houses. They do have a starter kit that includes two(?) customer radios for free. I'm out of money for testing things, but let us know if you try it. -John PS - they can sync multiple base stations from a central server. On Mar 18, 2009, at 9:27 PM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: > I'm looking into this too. > > So far I can't find a solution for rural towers. A 3 sector install > at > $20k? Not to service the 20 people that will be able to even see that > tower > > Anyone have any better ideas? > marlon 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] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
* Marlon K. Schafer wrote, On 3/18/2009 10:32 PM: > Thanks Leon, > You;re welcome Marlon... > Do you have a contact person? > Harold Bledsoe he's a WISPA member vendor. > Also, what ranges and speeds are people seeing with 3650? > I don;t know as I'm not with Bluemont anymore and we/I were looking at all the 3650 stuff last year. Depends on the channel size too. > Anyone worried about self inflicted interneference? There is only 50mhz of > spectrum right? > I don't think that should be an issue. Let me know how it goes. Leon > marlon > > - Original Message - > From: "Leon Zetekoff" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:31 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > > >> Hi Marlon...I'd look at the Ligowave stuff similar in principle to the >> UBNT stuff but I think much better. That's what I'd do today. >> >> Take care leon >> >> Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >> >>> I'm looking into this too. >>> >>> So far I can't find a solution for rural towers. A 3 sector install at >>> $20k? Not to service the 20 people that will be able to even see that >>> tower >>> >>> Anyone have any better ideas? >>> marlon >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Gino Villarini" >>> To: "Motorola Canopy User Group" ; "WISPA General >>> List" >>> >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:55 AM >>> Subject: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Fellow operators: >>>> >>>> Any updates on your experienes with 3.65 gear? PMP and PTP? >>>> >>>> Any updates on experiences with: >>>> >>>> Redline, Aperto, Tranzeo, Vecima, Alvarion, Ligowave, Solectek, Airspan >>>> ??? >>>> >>>> >>>> Gino A. Villarini >>>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>>> >>>> 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] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
No one is certified for more than 25 MHz at this time. Sync solves self interference. I've seen pictures of your POPs... I know there's a lot of rocks out there, but do you have to hide under them all? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "Marlon K. Schafer" Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:32 PM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > Thanks Leon, > > Do you have a contact person? > > Also, what ranges and speeds are people seeing with 3650? > > Anyone worried about self inflicted interneference? There is only 50mhz > of > spectrum right? > marlon > > - Original Message - > From: "Leon Zetekoff" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:31 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? > > >> Hi Marlon...I'd look at the Ligowave stuff similar in principle to the >> UBNT stuff but I think much better. That's what I'd do today. >> >> Take care leon >> >> Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >>> I'm looking into this too. >>> >>> So far I can't find a solution for rural towers. A 3 sector install at >>> $20k? Not to service the 20 people that will be able to even see that >>> tower >>> >>> Anyone have any better ideas? >>> marlon >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Gino Villarini" >>> To: "Motorola Canopy User Group" ; "WISPA General >>> List" >>> >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:55 AM >>> Subject: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? >>> >>> >>> >>>> Fellow operators: >>>> >>>> Any updates on your experienes with 3.65 gear? PMP and PTP? >>>> >>>> Any updates on experiences with: >>>> >>>> Redline, Aperto, Tranzeo, Vecima, Alvarion, Ligowave, Solectek, Airspan >>>> ??? >>>> >>>> >>>> Gino A. Villarini >>>> g...@aeronetpr.com >>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>>> >> >> >> >> 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/
