Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
Grin... It includes the combo to the building so you can pull them and put them in your truck! What a deal! - Original Message - From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 9:42 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Blake Bowers wrote: And now I can't sell those DS3 Digital microwave radios from the MCI system for anything more than 10 cents a pound. Does that price include shipping? :D David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
needs one direction or another. Doesn't it really mean that the customer needs more total bandwidth? Is it any more important that mail was sent and not received? Full Duplex is one way for a customer to solve that problem, and reserve bandwdith in one direction. But does that really solve the problem? Maybe if the circuit's intended use is for 100% VOIP a symetrical application. But not many circuits are used for that purpose. And if I really wanted to, I can set my bandwdith management to be seperate for upload and download, and immulate a Full Duplex connection, over the half duplex link. But what it really says to me is the importance that customers have front end queuing / IP prioritization when using bi-directional sensitive applications such as VOIP. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 4:45 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Hi, If someone wants to setup whatever wireless network they would like to test and then let me know, I'll gladly send you a CD you can pop in a laptop and connect at the CPE side. It will dish out 4,000pps and 1.5Mbps of upload traffic. Then you can go ahead and try and download something at the same time across that same link using the same CPE connection. If it were a telco-T1, the download would not even notice the upload. Wireless, being a half-duplex medium, does not compare to a full-duplex line. Licensed and true microwave systems are a different story. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Travis, We do not see that on our network. One provider's usage rarely has an effect on the others, that can be significantly noticed. When bandwidth management is done at the first hop at every cell site, this does not happen. I'm referring to using Trango 5830s. You are however bringing up the difference between time syncronized circuit based apposed to Ethernet products. With Ethernet, there is always a scale up and scale down of speed, based on the TCP protocol when limits are reached, but this has nothing to do with half or full duplex. The same degregation using Ethernet applies to traffic going in the same direction. For Ethernet to be a viable repalcement for T1, it must be of greater capacity. The second thing, distinguishing the difference between T1 and DSL classe, and which Wireless compares to, is more than just Speed and Duplex. SLAs, Repair Time, Network support, Peak Speed, etc. the idea is that unused bandwdith can never be gone back to regain use of. So offering 3 mbps speed allows network usage to be delivered sooner, so bandwidth is free for upcomming traffic, therefore making more traffic available for that upcomming need. Higher capacity allows more efficient use of the bandwdith. So we find that our customers tend to recognize a perception of much better speed on our wireless links than our T1 links, because they have fewer congestion times. The secret is for the bandwdith management to be provided equally on a PRIORITY basis. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Matt, This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps upload, it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic, music sharing, worms, etc.). With a wireless connection, even at 3.0Mbps, a 1.5Mbps upload will bring it almost to a stop. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: 3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is equivalent to 1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD radios can have dynamic time division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex link superior IMHO. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Tom, Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless? Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Chris, I agree with your finding. But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or what was the finding?) For example, its not only important to determine what terms the customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning they have for those terms that they identify with. For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed Internet was the term that the consumer best identified with. However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much with DialUP service as they do with Broadband. And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL or Cable services. Why do we want to create the image of offering commodity services, design for huge over subscription, low repair SLAs, and best effort? Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as setting
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
broadband, why would the data in one direction be any more priority than the other, when capacity is reached? Either way the customer is compromised in throughout needs one direction or another. Doesn't it really mean that the customer needs more total bandwidth? Is it any more important that mail was sent and not received? Full Duplex is one way for a customer to solve that problem, and reserve bandwdith in one direction. But does that really solve the problem? Maybe if the circuit's intended use is for 100% VOIP a symetrical application. But not many circuits are used for that purpose. And if I really wanted to, I can set my bandwdith management to be seperate for upload and download, and immulate a Full Duplex connection, over the half duplex link. But what it really says to me is the importance that customers have front end queuing / IP prioritization when using bi-directional sensitive applications such as VOIP. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 4:45 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Hi, If someone wants to setup whatever wireless network they would like to test and then let me know, I'll gladly send you a CD you can pop in a laptop and connect at the CPE side. It will dish out 4,000pps and 1.5Mbps of upload traffic. Then you can go ahead and try and download something at the same time across that same link using the same CPE connection. If it were a telco-T1, the download would not even notice the upload. Wireless, being a half-duplex medium, does not compare to a full-duplex line. Licensed and true microwave systems are a different story. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Travis, We do not see that on our network. One provider's usage rarely has an effect on the others, that can be significantly noticed. When bandwidth management is done at the first hop at every cell site, this does not happen. I'm referring to using Trango 5830s. You are however bringing up the difference between time syncronized circuit based apposed to Ethernet products. With Ethernet, there is always a scale up and scale down of speed, based on the TCP protocol when limits are reached, but this has nothing to do with half or full duplex. The same degregation using Ethernet applies to traffic going in the same direction. For Ethernet to be a viable repalcement for T1, it must be of greater capacity. The second thing, distinguishing the difference between T1 and DSL classe, and which Wireless compares to, is more than just Speed and Duplex. SLAs, Repair Time, Network support, Peak Speed, etc. the idea is that unused bandwdith can never be gone back to regain use of. So offering 3 mbps speed allows network usage to be delivered sooner, so bandwidth is free for upcomming traffic, therefore making more traffic available for that upcomming need. Higher capacity allows more efficient use of the bandwdith. So we find that our customers tend to recognize a perception of much better speed on our wireless links than our T1 links, because they have fewer congestion times. The secret is for the bandwdith management to be provided equally on a PRIORITY basis. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Matt, This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps upload, it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic, music sharing, worms, etc.). With a wireless connection, even at 3.0Mbps, a 1.5Mbps upload will bring it almost to a stop. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: 3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is equivalent to 1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD radios can have dynamic time division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex link superior IMHO. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Tom, Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless? Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Chris, I agree with your finding. But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or what was the finding?) For example, its not only important to determine what terms the customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning they have for those terms that they identify with. For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed Internet was the term that the consumer best identified with. However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much with DialUP service as they do with Broadband. And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL or Cable services. Why do we want to create the image of offering commodity
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
never met a company where having one direction traffic only was acceptable or tolerable. You did however hit on an important clarification. A half duplex link can not distinguish on its own wether upload or download traffic at a given moment is priority or more important to the subscriber. When there is a large demand for legitimate broadband, why would the data in one direction be any more priority than the other, when capacity is reached? Either way the customer is compromised in throughout needs one direction or another. Doesn't it really mean that the customer needs more total bandwidth? Is it any more important that mail was sent and not received? Full Duplex is one way for a customer to solve that problem, and reserve bandwdith in one direction. But does that really solve the problem? Maybe if the circuit's intended use is for 100% VOIP a symetrical application. But not many circuits are used for that purpose. And if I really wanted to, I can set my bandwdith management to be seperate for upload and download, and immulate a Full Duplex connection, over the half duplex link. But what it really says to me is the importance that customers have front end queuing / IP prioritization when using bi-directional sensitive applications such as VOIP. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 4:45 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Hi, If someone wants to setup whatever wireless network they would like to test and then let me know, I'll gladly send you a CD you can pop in a laptop and connect at the CPE side. It will dish out 4,000pps and 1.5Mbps of upload traffic. Then you can go ahead and try and download something at the same time across that same link using the same CPE connection. If it were a telco-T1, the download would not even notice the upload. Wireless, being a half-duplex medium, does not compare to a full-duplex line. Licensed and true microwave systems are a different story. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Travis, We do not see that on our network. One provider's usage rarely has an effect on the others, that can be significantly noticed. When bandwidth management is done at the first hop at every cell site, this does not happen. I'm referring to using Trango 5830s. You are however bringing up the difference between time syncronized circuit based apposed to Ethernet products. With Ethernet, there is always a scale up and scale down of speed, based on the TCP protocol when limits are reached, but this has nothing to do with half or full duplex. The same degregation using Ethernet applies to traffic going in the same direction. For Ethernet to be a viable repalcement for T1, it must be of greater capacity. The second thing, distinguishing the difference between T1 and DSL classe, and which Wireless compares to, is more than just Speed and Duplex. SLAs, Repair Time, Network support, Peak Speed, etc. the idea is that unused bandwdith can never be gone back to regain use of. So offering 3 mbps speed allows network usage to be delivered sooner, so bandwidth is free for upcomming traffic, therefore making more traffic available for that upcomming need. Higher capacity allows more efficient use of the bandwdith. So we find that our customers tend to recognize a perception of much better speed on our wireless links than our T1 links, because they have fewer congestion times. The secret is for the bandwdith management to be provided equally on a PRIORITY basis. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Matt, This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps upload, it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic, music sharing, worms, etc.). With a wireless connection, even at 3.0Mbps, a 1.5Mbps upload will bring it almost to a stop. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: 3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is equivalent to 1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD radios can have dynamic time division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex link superior IMHO. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Tom, Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless? Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Chris, I agree with your finding. But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or what was the finding?) For example, its not only important to determine what terms the customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning they have for those terms that they identify with. For example, it does
engineering links (was Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband)
I know we keep working on our processes to improve the installation of our links. We still have a burn-in period after installations because our processes aren't yet 100%. I think it would be great if we could together work up a documented procedure to ensure better wireline reliability of wireless links. -Matt John Scrivner wrote: Well engineered links with proper installation, lightning protection, battery backup and good gear will be just as reliable (if not more) as any land line system in my opinion. The rub is that many wireless links are poorly engineered, bad gear and not installed well. Garbage in...garbage out. I am just as guilty as anyone else. I am fixing that though. I have wireless links that are getting to be as reliable as wired ones. I will be better than wired reliably here in a year. The cost factor puts wireless well ahead of any risk/reward or value comparisons to other broadband platforms. Wireless will be the clear winner in the end if we all learn to do it right and buy good gear. Scriv -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: engineering links (was Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband)
Hey Matt, Please excuse the following shameless self-promotion however, it's my mission to try to be helpful therefore I respectfully offer the following: I think you'll find my book helpful: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1587050692/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-8486677-9648632#reader-link or my workshops: http://www.ask-wi.com/2002workshops.html or my telephone consulting or on-site consulting. You're always welcome to phone or email me and if I can answer your questions in 15 or 20 (or even 23) minutes, there's no charge. I'm sure you can also pick up some excellent ideas (and pick some very knowledgable brains) by attending a few carefully selected workshops at quality broadband shows like WISPNOG. With a good grasp of how to calculate a link budget, how to interpret those sometimes incomplete vendor specifications, and how to avoid the common installation-process pitfalls, you'll be able to write up a design and installation procedure that should work pretty well for your company, going forward. jack Matt Liotta wrote: I know we keep working on our processes to improve the installation of our links. We still have a burn-in period after installations because our processes aren't yet 100%. I think it would be great if we could together work up a documented procedure to ensure better wireline reliability of wireless links. -Matt John Scrivner wrote: Well engineered links with proper installation, lightning protection, battery backup and good gear will be just as reliable (if not more) as any land line system in my opinion. The rub is that many wireless links are poorly engineered, bad gear and not installed well. Garbage in...garbage out. I am just as guilty as anyone else. I am fixing that though. I have wireless links that are getting to be as reliable as wired ones. I will be better than wired reliably here in a year. The cost factor puts wireless well ahead of any risk/reward or value comparisons to other broadband platforms. Wireless will be the clear winner in the end if we all learn to do it right and buy good gear. Scriv -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Our next WISP Workshops are April 12-13 and April 26-27 Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
Travis does bring up an important issue regarding uptime. It has been proven that Wireless can be a reliable technology, the flaw is not the RF. Expecially PtP links engineered between two points on an ISPs network, controlled by an ISP. The problem however come in on the other side of the link. Can we control the factors on the customer side, that can effect reliabilty? And is it cost effective to do so? Some examples: 1. A landscaper cut the CAT5 cable on the side of the house. 2. Poor electrical causes frequent radio lockup or Linksys's to loose configs. 3. A cleaning crew, unplugs routers in MTU building electrical closet, so they can plug in their vacume. 4. A customer gets a Virus, and sends traffic patterns that manages to force lockups on AP regularly. 5. A roofer desides to setup a temp work center in front of our rooftop SU dish antenna. Packet loss every 3 minutes, when goes to grab another bunch of shingles or what ever. Many of these problems are less prone to happen with T1 lines, but it has nothing to do with technology, it has to do with deployment trends and characteristics. As a result, in some cases, short outages could occur more frequently. Thats why its so important that WISPs continue to push the many other valuable positives of Wireless that the technology uniquely gives, making it all worth it. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 9:13 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Matt, Now you are comparing $150,000 point to point licensed microwave links with $150 CPE point to multi-point links? Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: We haven't been in business for 3 years, but yes we have wireless links that have 100% uptime. How many years did this entire country depend on wireless links for long distance prior to fiber optics? The M in MCI isn't microwave for no reason. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I have point to point T1 lines from Qwest that have been up 100% for the last 3 years. That's 100.0% uptime. Do you have any wireless links that have that type of reliability? I am probably one of the largest WISP operators on this and any wireless list. I built our entire wireless backbone from the ground up starting in 1997. I spent 3 hours on a tower this morning installing two new AP's. I understand where wireless fits and where it doesn't. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: I'll take a wireless link over a T1 any day if for no other reason then the wireless link will be more reliable. You're never going to suffer the loss of a link due to a backhoe or a drunk driver hitting a pole, which are the two most likely reasons for a T1 failure. Personally, I believe that fixed wireless is truly better and I would argue someone has no business working for a fixed wireless company if they don't believe it too. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Tom, The original postition and question was are you comparing your wireless service to telco T1. After your posts, it's obvious that you are... and I would argue that a land-based line will ALWAYS be better than wireless, with all other factors being the same. Now, if you are able to save the customer $xx per month by using wireless, then there is an advantage. If you can provide other services, then there is an advantage. However, comparing a half-duplex system to a full-duplex system and saying they are the same is... not correct. If you had the choice between running a full-duplex wireless system and half-duplex, which would you do? :) If you could purchase a land-based connection to go from point A to point B for $500 per month, or rent roof-top space at point A and point B for $500 per month, which would you choose? ;) Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Travis, I'd love to perform your test. Send me the CD. Understanding that I will provision the customer at 3 mbps on our first hop router, using Trango 10mbps PtMP radio link, and that your CD test will generate 1500mbps of data transfer. There are three seperate issues here. 1) One user's connection able to effect another user's connection, and 2) On one particular link, their upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under normal opperation within acceptable use policy, and 3) On one particular link, their upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under a Denial of Service situation. With any type of broadband, if the capacity of a link is saturated, it results in packet loss and performance loss for the individual's connection. Its up to the end user to protect against violation of acceptable use policy like viruses that deliver abnormal PPS, or any queueing needed to allow fair priority of data type on the LAN side of the link. These problems can also all be solved with a feature rich client side
RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
All good points and I also think that in a urban/city environment were you have more visible rooftops that redundancy from another PoP is the key and using a routing protocol to fail over if the main link goes down Dan Metcalf Wireless Broadband Systems www.wbisp.com 781-566-2053 ext 6201 1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783 [EMAIL PROTECTED] support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 1:47 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Travis does bring up an important issue regarding uptime. It has been proven that Wireless can be a reliable technology, the flaw is not the RF. Expecially PtP links engineered between two points on an ISPs network, controlled by an ISP. The problem however come in on the other side of the link. Can we control the factors on the customer side, that can effect reliabilty? And is it cost effective to do so? Some examples: 1. A landscaper cut the CAT5 cable on the side of the house. 2. Poor electrical causes frequent radio lockup or Linksys's to loose configs. 3. A cleaning crew, unplugs routers in MTU building electrical closet, so they can plug in their vacume. 4. A customer gets a Virus, and sends traffic patterns that manages to force lockups on AP regularly. 5. A roofer desides to setup a temp work center in front of our rooftop SU dish antenna. Packet loss every 3 minutes, when goes to grab another bunch of shingles or what ever. Many of these problems are less prone to happen with T1 lines, but it has nothing to do with technology, it has to do with deployment trends and characteristics. As a result, in some cases, short outages could occur more frequently. Thats why its so important that WISPs continue to push the many other valuable positives of Wireless that the technology uniquely gives, making it all worth it. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 9:13 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Matt, Now you are comparing $150,000 point to point licensed microwave links with $150 CPE point to multi-point links? Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: We haven't been in business for 3 years, but yes we have wireless links that have 100% uptime. How many years did this entire country depend on wireless links for long distance prior to fiber optics? The M in MCI isn't microwave for no reason. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I have point to point T1 lines from Qwest that have been up 100% for the last 3 years. That's 100.0% uptime. Do you have any wireless links that have that type of reliability? I am probably one of the largest WISP operators on this and any wireless list. I built our entire wireless backbone from the ground up starting in 1997. I spent 3 hours on a tower this morning installing two new AP's. I understand where wireless fits and where it doesn't. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: I'll take a wireless link over a T1 any day if for no other reason then the wireless link will be more reliable. You're never going to suffer the loss of a link due to a backhoe or a drunk driver hitting a pole, which are the two most likely reasons for a T1 failure. Personally, I believe that fixed wireless is truly better and I would argue someone has no business working for a fixed wireless company if they don't believe it too. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Tom, The original postition and question was are you comparing your wireless service to telco T1. After your posts, it's obvious that you are... and I would argue that a land-based line will ALWAYS be better than wireless, with all other factors being the same. Now, if you are able to save the customer $xx per month by using wireless, then there is an advantage. If you can provide other services, then there is an advantage. However, comparing a half-duplex system to a full-duplex system and saying they are the same is... not correct. If you had the choice between running a full-duplex wireless system and half-duplex, which would you do? :) If you could purchase a land-based connection to go from point A to point B for $500 per month, or rent roof-top space at point A and point B for $500 per month, which would you choose? ;) Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Travis, I'd love to perform your test. Send me the CD. Understanding that I will provision the customer at 3 mbps on our first hop router, using Trango 10mbps PtMP radio link, and that your CD test will generate 1500mbps of data transfer. There are three seperate issues here. 1) One user's connection able to effect another user's
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
no CPU time is available for it. Unless each direction has its own CPU, which is not likely. This is an issue of whether the radio used can handle the number of PPS sent to it in high DOS situations. I'd also argue under this situation 4000 pps 1500 mbps, that the customer's use of the circuit in any capacity when a DOS of that type was happening, would be not possible, and justify immediate tech action to resolve, regardless of whether one direction of traffic was usable. I;ve never met a company where having one direction traffic only was acceptable or tolerable. You did however hit on an important clarification. A half duplex link can not distinguish on its own wether upload or download traffic at a given moment is priority or more important to the subscriber. When there is a large demand for legitimate broadband, why would the data in one direction be any more priority than the other, when capacity is reached? Either way the customer is compromised in throughout needs one direction or another. Doesn't it really mean that the customer needs more total bandwidth? Is it any more important that mail was sent and not received? Full Duplex is one way for a customer to solve that problem, and reserve bandwdith in one direction. But does that really solve the problem? Maybe if the circuit's intended use is for 100% VOIP a symetrical application. But not many circuits are used for that purpose. And if I really wanted to, I can set my bandwdith management to be seperate for upload and download, and immulate a Full Duplex connection, over the half duplex link. But what it really says to me is the importance that customers have front end queuing / IP prioritization when using bi-directional sensitive applications such as VOIP. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 4:45 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Hi, If someone wants to setup whatever wireless network they would like to test and then let me know, I'll gladly send you a CD you can pop in a laptop and connect at the CPE side. It will dish out 4,000pps and 1.5Mbps of upload traffic. Then you can go ahead and try and download something at the same time across that same link using the same CPE connection. If it were a telco-T1, the download would not even notice the upload. Wireless, being a half-duplex medium, does not compare to a full-duplex line. Licensed and true microwave systems are a different story. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Travis, We do not see that on our network. One provider's usage rarely has an effect on the others, that can be significantly noticed. When bandwidth management is done at the first hop at every cell site, this does not happen. I'm referring to using Trango 5830s. You are however bringing up the difference between time syncronized circuit based apposed to Ethernet products. With Ethernet, there is always a scale up and scale down of speed, based on the TCP protocol when limits are reached, but this has nothing to do with half or full duplex. The same degregation using Ethernet applies to traffic going in the same direction. For Ethernet to be a viable repalcement for T1, it must be of greater capacity. The second thing, distinguishing the difference between T1 and DSL classe, and which Wireless compares to, is more than just Speed and Duplex. SLAs, Repair Time, Network support, Peak Speed, etc. the idea is that unused bandwdith can never be gone back to regain use of. So offering 3 mbps speed allows network usage to be delivered sooner, so bandwidth is free for upcomming traffic, therefore making more traffic available for that upcomming need. Higher capacity allows more efficient use of the bandwdith. So we find that our customers tend to recognize a perception of much better speed on our wireless links than our T1 links, because they have fewer congestion times. The secret is for the bandwdith management to be provided equally on a PRIORITY basis. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Matt, This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps upload, it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic, music sharing, worms, etc.). With a wireless connection, even at 3.0Mbps, a 1.5Mbps upload will bring it almost to a stop. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: 3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is equivalent to 1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD radios can have dynamic time division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex link superior IMHO. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Tom
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
Travis Johnson wrote: 20 years ago before the fiber and MCI was using links, they cost more than $150k. Even our local cell phone provider has point to point links that are over $100k today. That's nice, but they don't have to cost that much. I know one of the local metro counties here is using 7Ghz licensed for trunking their 911 operations and each link cost under $50k. I am not privy to the uptime of these links, but I am guessing that they must be pretty reliable if they are used for 911 by a government entity. I've been doing this for almost 10 years I have THOUSANDS of wireless customers. How many customers do you have? The total number of failures is relative to the number of CPE. I don't really see how we can compare our businesses as we don't really do much multipoint. A customer that just buys a T1 replacement for a single location is the exception in our business. Most of our customers are buying a lot more bandwidth and/or have many locations. For example, one of our CLEC customers just placed an order for 14 new 3Mbps links. You think a CLEC is going to use us for last mile if we can't provide them with a 99.99%/50ms SLA? And if you are using CPE that is more than $150, maybe you should be looking at Trango. :) We evaluated Trango and even used them in a the field for a while. We don't use Trango anymore. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
Matt, What hardware are you using? Dan Metcalf Wireless Broadband Systems www.wbisp.com 781-566-2053 ext 6201 1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783 [EMAIL PROTECTED] support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 2:40 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Travis Johnson wrote: 20 years ago before the fiber and MCI was using links, they cost more than $150k. Even our local cell phone provider has point to point links that are over $100k today. That's nice, but they don't have to cost that much. I know one of the local metro counties here is using 7Ghz licensed for trunking their 911 operations and each link cost under $50k. I am not privy to the uptime of these links, but I am guessing that they must be pretty reliable if they are used for 911 by a government entity. I've been doing this for almost 10 years I have THOUSANDS of wireless customers. How many customers do you have? The total number of failures is relative to the number of CPE. I don't really see how we can compare our businesses as we don't really do much multipoint. A customer that just buys a T1 replacement for a single location is the exception in our business. Most of our customers are buying a lot more bandwidth and/or have many locations. For example, one of our CLEC customers just placed an order for 14 new 3Mbps links. You think a CLEC is going to use us for last mile if we can't provide them with a 99.99%/50ms SLA? And if you are using CPE that is more than $150, maybe you should be looking at Trango. :) We evaluated Trango and even used them in a the field for a while. We don't use Trango anymore. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/303 - Release Date: 04/06/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/303 - Release Date: 04/06/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
Using for what? Motorola and Orthogon for our radio links. -Matt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt, What hardware are you using? Dan Metcalf Wireless Broadband Systems www.wbisp.com 781-566-2053 ext 6201 1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783 [EMAIL PROTECTED] support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 2:40 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Travis Johnson wrote: 20 years ago before the fiber and MCI was using links, they cost more than $150k. Even our local cell phone provider has point to point links that are over $100k today. That's nice, but they don't have to cost that much. I know one of the local metro counties here is using 7Ghz licensed for trunking their 911 operations and each link cost under $50k. I am not privy to the uptime of these links, but I am guessing that they must be pretty reliable if they are used for 911 by a government entity. I've been doing this for almost 10 years I have THOUSANDS of wireless customers. How many customers do you have? The total number of failures is relative to the number of CPE. I don't really see how we can compare our businesses as we don't really do much multipoint. A customer that just buys a T1 replacement for a single location is the exception in our business. Most of our customers are buying a lot more bandwidth and/or have many locations. For example, one of our CLEC customers just placed an order for 14 new 3Mbps links. You think a CLEC is going to use us for last mile if we can't provide them with a 99.99%/50ms SLA? And if you are using CPE that is more than $150, maybe you should be looking at Trango. :) We evaluated Trango and even used them in a the field for a while. We don't use Trango anymore. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/303 - Release Date: 04/06/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
And now I can't sell those DS3 Digital microwave radios from the MCI system for anything more than 10 cents a pound. Such a shame. - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 1:03 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Matt, 20 years ago before the fiber and MCI was using links, they cost more than $150k. Even our local cell phone provider has point to point links that are over $100k today. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
Im I wrong here because I believe a T1 line utilizes TDD (Time Division Duplexing)? Thus it is a half duplex solution. In reality it feels like a full duplex solution due to the timing. Anthony Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, If someone wants to setup whatever wireless network they would like to test and then let me know, I'll gladly send you a CD you can pop in a laptop and connect at the CPE side. It will dish out 4,000pps and 1.5Mbps of upload traffic. Then you can go ahead and try and download something at the same time across that same link using the same CPE connection. If it were a telco-T1, the download would not even notice the upload. Wireless, being a half-duplex medium, does not compare to a full-duplex line. Licensed and true microwave systems are a different story. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Travis, We do not see that on our network. One provider's usage rarely has an effect on the others, that can be significantly noticed. When bandwidth management is done at the first hop at every cell site, this does not happen. I'm referring to using Trango 5830s. You are however bringing up the difference between time syncronized circuit based apposed to Ethernet products. With Ethernet, there is always a scale up and scale down of speed, based on the TCP protocol when limits are reached, but this has nothing to do with half or full duplex. The same degregation using Ethernet applies to traffic going in the same direction. For Ethernet to be a viable repalcement for T1, it must be of greater capacity. The second thing, distinguishing the difference between T1 and DSL classe, and which Wireless compares to, is more than just Speed and Duplex. SLAs, Repair Time, Network support, Peak Speed, etc. the idea is that unused bandwdith can never be gone back to regain use of. So offering 3 mbps speed allows network usage to be delivered sooner, so bandwidth is free for upcomming traffic, therefore making more traffic available for that upcomming need. Higher capacity allows more efficient use of the bandwdith. So we find that our customers tend to recognize a perception of much better speed on our wireless links than our T1 links, because they have fewer congestion times. The secret is for the bandwdith management to be provided equally on a PRIORITY basis. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Matt, This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps upload, it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic, music sharing, worms, etc.). With a wireless connection, even at 3.0Mbps, a 1.5Mbps upload will bring it almost to a stop. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: 3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is equivalent to 1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD radios can have dynamic time division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex link superior IMHO. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Tom, Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless? Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Chris, I agree with your finding. But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or what was the finding?) For example, its not only important to determine what terms the customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning they have for those terms that they identify with. For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed Internet was the term that the consumer best identified with. However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much with DialUP service as they do with Broadband. And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL or Cable services. Why do we want to create the image of offering commodity services, design for huge over subscription, low repair SLAs, and best effort? Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as setting standards for quality? We don't want to be identified as that. We want to be something better. Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi services to your clients, and you are striving to be a competitor to Cable and DSL quality, sure Brand the product as DSL, and its a good thing. And please do so, so your wireless is not identified with what we offer, branding high quality fiber extension and T1 replacement services. In your focus group did you get any results on their perception of quality that they associated with Cable and DSL or the term High Speed Internet? Would you suggest branding your T1 or Fiber offerings as High Speed Internet, since customers best identify with that term? Maybe we should be branding our service as Wi-Fiber. or Maybe Ethernet Internet Access (of course like end
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
Blake Bowers wrote: And now I can't sell those DS3 Digital microwave radios from the MCI system for anything more than 10 cents a pound. Does that price include shipping? :D David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
hhhmmm should have started that with I MAYBE am wrong here Anthony Will wrote: Im I wrong here because I believe a T1 line utilizes TDD (Time Division Duplexing)? Thus it is a half duplex solution. In reality it feels like a full duplex solution due to the timing. Anthony Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, If someone wants to setup whatever wireless network they would like to test and then let me know, I'll gladly send you a CD you can pop in a laptop and connect at the CPE side. It will dish out 4,000pps and 1.5Mbps of upload traffic. Then you can go ahead and try and download something at the same time across that same link using the same CPE connection. If it were a telco-T1, the download would not even notice the upload. Wireless, being a half-duplex medium, does not compare to a full-duplex line. Licensed and true microwave systems are a different story. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Travis, We do not see that on our network. One provider's usage rarely has an effect on the others, that can be significantly noticed. When bandwidth management is done at the first hop at every cell site, this does not happen. I'm referring to using Trango 5830s. You are however bringing up the difference between time syncronized circuit based apposed to Ethernet products. With Ethernet, there is always a scale up and scale down of speed, based on the TCP protocol when limits are reached, but this has nothing to do with half or full duplex. The same degregation using Ethernet applies to traffic going in the same direction. For Ethernet to be a viable repalcement for T1, it must be of greater capacity. The second thing, distinguishing the difference between T1 and DSL classe, and which Wireless compares to, is more than just Speed and Duplex. SLAs, Repair Time, Network support, Peak Speed, etc. the idea is that unused bandwdith can never be gone back to regain use of. So offering 3 mbps speed allows network usage to be delivered sooner, so bandwidth is free for upcomming traffic, therefore making more traffic available for that upcomming need. Higher capacity allows more efficient use of the bandwdith. So we find that our customers tend to recognize a perception of much better speed on our wireless links than our T1 links, because they have fewer congestion times. The secret is for the bandwdith management to be provided equally on a PRIORITY basis. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Matt, This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps upload, it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic, music sharing, worms, etc.). With a wireless connection, even at 3.0Mbps, a 1.5Mbps upload will bring it almost to a stop. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: 3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is equivalent to 1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD radios can have dynamic time division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex link superior IMHO. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Tom, Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless? Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Chris, I agree with your finding. But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or what was the finding?) For example, its not only important to determine what terms the customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning they have for those terms that they identify with. For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed Internet was the term that the consumer best identified with. However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much with DialUP service as they do with Broadband. And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL or Cable services. Why do we want to create the image of offering commodity services, design for huge over subscription, low repair SLAs, and best effort? Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as setting standards for quality? We don't want to be identified as that. We want to be something better. Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi services to your clients, and you are striving to be a competitor to Cable and DSL quality, sure Brand the product as DSL, and its a good thing. And please do so, so your wireless is not identified with what we offer, branding high quality fiber extension and T1 replacement services. In your focus group did you get any results on their perception of quality that they associated with Cable and DSL or the term High Speed Internet? Would you suggest branding your T1 or Fiber offerings as High Speed Internet, since customers best identify with that term? Maybe we should
RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
Hadn't thought about it that way...so our 5 Mbps/1 Mbps link would be a 6 Mbps link. Yep, a name is an important marketing tool. I think our name St. Louis Broadband helps us out (stlbroadband.com and stlouisbroadband.com), but if we ever want to expand our territory, we would have a problem. Victoria -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 1:14 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband We don't, but there is no need to. 3 mbps half duplex = 1.5 mbps full duplex. (Actually bettter, because when upload speed not used, its there to be used for high speeds in the other direction.) Our router bandwidth management allows setting speed in both directions (using HTB). Its one marketing trick that works to our advantage. We advertise symetrical, not simultaneous Full Duplex. That means we have same speed both directions, not top speed in both directions at the same time. So a client pushing 2 mbps down and 1 mbps up, would equal a 3 mbps link. We can advertise speeds up to the max speed someone can acheive in a specific direction. Because most clients do not use equal speed in both direction, nuch of their Full Duplex bandwidth just goes wasted and unused on T1s. So 3 mbps is perceived as twice the speed than their T1 for those that don;t catch the difference between full and half duplex. And a great replacement for their T1. Those that do understand the difference, well, we are still offering equivellent capacity. What also works to our advantage is that T1 providers also generally don't offer guaranteed bandwidth either. A T1 might be as low as $500 a month, but if the buy a true MCI guaranteed bandwidth circuit, paying 95%tile, they'd easilly be paying over $1000 buck for the T1 link. So technically competitor's T1s are MIR bandwidth under their SLA. So we also spec our product at MIR. We stay away from any term like Best Effort associated with commodity services like DSL. The second we take out local loop costs, we can always be more cost effective, with out sacrificing quality on the link at the back end, because we actually ahve a lower front end cost. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 11:52 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Tom, Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless? Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Chris, I agree with your finding. But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or what was the finding?) For example, its not only important to determine what terms the customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning they have for those terms that they identify with. For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed Internet was the term that the consumer best identified with. However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much with DialUP service as they do with Broadband. And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL or Cable services. Why do we want to create the image of offering commodity services, design for huge over subscription, low repair SLAs, and best effort? Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as setting standards for quality? We don't want to be identified as that. We want to be something better. Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi services to your clients, and you are striving to be a competitor to Cable and DSL quality, sure Brand the product as DSL, and its a good thing. And please do so, so your wireless is not identified with what we offer, branding high quality fiber extension and T1 replacement services. In your focus group did you get any results on their perception of quality that they associated with Cable and DSL or the term High Speed Internet? Would you suggest branding your T1 or Fiber offerings as High Speed Internet, since customers best identify with that term? Maybe we should be branding our service as Wi-Fiber. or Maybe Ethernet Internet Access (of course like end users will know what Ethernet means.) Its a tough call because if we called our service Fiber or T1 we'd most likely be liars based on their true definitions. Nothing exists realting to quality for us to piggy back on. All though Broadband may not be as well recognized, its doesn;t associate us with Telcos or Cable companies necessarilly. Broadband is truthfully defined as a general term to cover any media type of delivery of Internet Access. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: chris cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 4:45 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Hi, If someone wants to setup whatever wireless network they would like to test and then let me know, I'll gladly send you a CD you can pop in a laptop and connect at the CPE side. It will dish out 4,000pps and 1.5Mbps of upload traffic. Then you can go ahead and try and download something at the same time across that same link using the same CPE connection. If it were a telco-T1, the download would not even notice the upload. Wireless, being a half-duplex medium, does not compare to a full-duplex line. Licensed and true microwave systems are a different story. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Travis, We do not see that on our network. One provider's usage rarely has an effect on the others, that can be significantly noticed. When bandwidth management is done at the first hop at every cell site, this does not happen. I'm referring to using Trango 5830s. You are however bringing up the difference between time syncronized circuit based apposed to Ethernet products. With Ethernet, there is always a scale up and scale down of speed, based on the TCP protocol when limits are reached, but this has nothing to do with half or full duplex. The same degregation using Ethernet applies to traffic going in the same direction. For Ethernet to be a viable repalcement for T1, it must be of greater capacity. The second thing, distinguishing the difference between T1 and DSL classe, and which Wireless compares to, is more than just Speed and Duplex. SLAs, Repair Time, Network support, Peak Speed, etc. the idea is that unused bandwdith can never be gone back to regain use of. So offering 3 mbps speed allows network usage to be delivered sooner, so bandwidth is free for upcomming traffic, therefore making more traffic available for that upcomming need. Higher capacity allows more efficient use of the bandwdith. So we find that our customers tend to recognize a perception of much better speed on our wireless links than our T1 links, because they have fewer congestion times. The secret is for the bandwdith management to be provided equally on a PRIORITY basis. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Matt, This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps upload, it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic, music sharing, worms, etc.). With a wireless connection, even at 3.0Mbps, a 1.5Mbps upload will bring it almost to a stop. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: 3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is equivalent to 1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD radios can have dynamic time division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex link superior IMHO. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Tom, Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless? Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Chris, I agree with your finding. But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or what was the finding?) For example, its not only important to determine what terms the customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning they have for those terms that they identify with. For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed Internet was the term that the consumer best identified with. However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much with DialUP service as they do with Broadband. And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL or Cable services. Why do we want to create the image of offering commodity services, design for huge over subscription, low repair SLAs, and best effort? Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as setting standards for quality? We don't want to be identified as that. We want to be something better. Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi services to your clients, and you are striving to be a competitor to Cable and DSL quality, sure Brand the product as DSL, and its a good thing. And please do so, so your wireless is not identified with what we offer, branding high quality fiber extension and T1 replacement services. In your focus group did you get any results on their perception of quality that they associated with Cable and DSL or the term High Speed Internet? Would you suggest branding your T1 or Fiber offerings as High Speed Internet, since customers best identify with that term? Maybe we should be branding our service as Wi-Fiber. or Maybe
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
Amen, Matt. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 9:58 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband I'll take a wireless link over a T1 any day if for no other reason then the wireless link will be more reliable. You're never going to suffer the loss of a link due to a backhoe or a drunk driver hitting a pole, which are the two most likely reasons for a T1 failure. Personally, I believe that fixed wireless is truly better and I would argue someone has no business working for a fixed wireless company if they don't believe it too. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Tom, The original postition and question was are you comparing your wireless service to telco T1. After your posts, it's obvious that you are... and I would argue that a land-based line will ALWAYS be better than wireless, with all other factors being the same. Now, if you are able to save the customer $xx per month by using wireless, then there is an advantage. If you can provide other services, then there is an advantage. However, comparing a half-duplex system to a full-duplex system and saying they are the same is... not correct. If you had the choice between running a full-duplex wireless system and half-duplex, which would you do? :) If you could purchase a land-based connection to go from point A to point B for $500 per month, or rent roof-top space at point A and point B for $500 per month, which would you choose? ;) Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Travis, I'd love to perform your test. Send me the CD. Understanding that I will provision the customer at 3 mbps on our first hop router, using Trango 10mbps PtMP radio link, and that your CD test will generate 1500mbps of data transfer. There are three seperate issues here. 1) One user's connection able to effect another user's connection, and 2) On one particular link, their upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under normal opperation within acceptable use policy, and 3) On one particular link, their upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under a Denial of Service situation. With any type of broadband, if the capacity of a link is saturated, it results in packet loss and performance loss for the individual's connection. Its up to the end user to protect against violation of acceptable use policy like viruses that deliver abnormal PPS, or any queueing needed to allow fair priority of data type on the LAN side of the link. These problems can also all be solved with a feature rich client side router before plugging to our Broadband, regardless of the Duplex of our link. In other words, The same performance problems will result on a full Duplex link, if one direction gets saturated, and that same direction traffic will result in packet loss, and all communication generally requires some communication in each of the direction for traffic to flow in one direction. So where the problem may be worse with Half Duplex, the problem still exists in some capacity with Full Duplex. I'd argue that its possible to generate enough pps on a Full Duplex Link in one direction, that will overload the processing power of the radio CPU, and the other direction still getting horrible performance even with no traffic passing in that other direction even though Full Duplex, because no CPU time is available for it. Unless each direction has its own CPU, which is not likely. This is an issue of whether the radio used can handle the number of PPS sent to it in high DOS situations. I'd also argue under this situation 4000 pps 1500 mbps, that the customer's use of the circuit in any capacity when a DOS of that type was happening, would be not possible, and justify immediate tech action to resolve, regardless of whether one direction of traffic was usable. I;ve never met a company where having one direction traffic only was acceptable or tolerable. You did however hit on an important clarification. A half duplex link can not distinguish on its own wether upload or download traffic at a given moment is priority or more important to the subscriber. When there is a large demand for legitimate broadband, why would the data in one direction be any more priority than the other, when capacity is reached? Either way the customer is compromised in throughout needs one direction or another. Doesn't it really mean that the customer needs more total bandwidth? Is it any more important that mail was sent and not received? Full Duplex is one way for a customer to solve that problem, and reserve bandwdith in one direction. But does that really solve the problem? Maybe if the circuit's intended use is for 100% VOIP a symetrical application. But not many circuits are used for that purpose. And if I really wanted to, I can set my bandwdith management
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
that really solve the problem? Maybe if the circuit's intended use is for 100% VOIP a symetrical application. But not many circuits are used for that purpose. And if I really wanted to, I can set my bandwdith management to be seperate for upload and download, and immulate a Full Duplex connection, over the half duplex link. But what it really says to me is the importance that customers have front end queuing / IP prioritization when using bi-directional sensitive applications such as VOIP. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 4:45 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Hi, If someone wants to setup whatever wireless network they would like to test and then let me know, I'll gladly send you a CD you can pop in a laptop and connect at the CPE side. It will dish out 4,000pps and 1.5Mbps of upload traffic. Then you can go ahead and try and download something at the same time across that same link using the same CPE connection. If it were a telco-T1, the download would not even notice the upload. Wireless, being a half-duplex medium, does not compare to a full-duplex line. Licensed and true microwave systems are a different story. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Travis, We do not see that on our network. One provider's usage rarely has an effect on the others, that can be significantly noticed. When bandwidth management is done at the first hop at every cell site, this does not happen. I'm referring to using Trango 5830s. You are however bringing up the difference between time syncronized circuit based apposed to Ethernet products. With Ethernet, there is always a scale up and scale down of speed, based on the TCP protocol when limits are reached, but this has nothing to do with half or full duplex. The same degregation using Ethernet applies to traffic going in the same direction. For Ethernet to be a viable repalcement for T1, it must be of greater capacity. The second thing, distinguishing the difference between T1 and DSL classe, and which Wireless compares to, is more than just Speed and Duplex. SLAs, Repair Time, Network support, Peak Speed, etc. the idea is that unused bandwdith can never be gone back to regain use of. So offering 3 mbps speed allows network usage to be delivered sooner, so bandwidth is free for upcomming traffic, therefore making more traffic available for that upcomming need. Higher capacity allows more efficient use of the bandwdith. So we find that our customers tend to recognize a perception of much better speed on our wireless links than our T1 links, because they have fewer congestion times. The secret is for the bandwdith management to be provided equally on a PRIORITY basis. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Matt, This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps upload, it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic, music sharing, worms, etc.). With a wireless connection, even at 3.0Mbps, a 1.5Mbps upload will bring it almost to a stop. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: 3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is equivalent to 1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD radios can have dynamic time division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex link superior IMHO. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Tom, Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless? Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Chris, I agree with your finding. But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or what was the finding?) For example, its not only important to determine what terms the customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning they have for those terms that they identify with. For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed Internet was the term that the consumer best identified with. However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much with DialUP service as they do with Broadband. And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL or Cable services. Why do we want to create the image of offering commodity services, design for huge over subscription, low repair SLAs, and best effort? Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as setting standards for quality? We don't want to be identified as that. We want to be something better. Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi services to your clients, and you are striving to be a competitor to Cable and DSL quality, sure Brand the product as DSL
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
, and the other direction still getting horrible performance even with no traffic passing in that other direction even though Full Duplex, because no CPU time is available for it. Unless each direction has its own CPU, which is not likely. This is an issue of whether the radio used can handle the number of PPS sent to it in high DOS situations. I'd also argue under this situation 4000 pps 1500 mbps, that the customer's use of the circuit in any capacity when a DOS of that type was happening, would be not possible, and justify immediate tech action to resolve, regardless of whether one direction of traffic was usable. I;ve never met a company where having one direction traffic only was acceptable or tolerable. You did however hit on an important clarification. A half duplex link can not distinguish on its own wether upload or download traffic at a given moment is priority or more important to the subscriber. When there is a large demand for legitimate broadband, why would the data in one direction be any more priority than the other, when capacity is reached? Either way the customer is compromised in throughout needs one direction or another. Doesn't it really mean that the customer needs more total bandwidth? Is it any more important that mail was sent and not received? Full Duplex is one way for a customer to solve that problem, and reserve bandwdith in one direction. But does that really solve the problem? Maybe if the circuit's intended use is for 100% VOIP a symetrical application. But not many circuits are used for that purpose. And if I really wanted to, I can set my bandwdith management to be seperate for upload and download, and immulate a Full Duplex connection, over the half duplex link. But what it really says to me is the importance that customers have front end queuing / IP prioritization when using bi-directional sensitive applications such as VOIP. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 4:45 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Hi, If someone wants to setup whatever wireless network they would like to test and then let me know, I'll gladly send you a CD you can pop in a laptop and connect at the CPE side. It will dish out 4,000pps and 1.5Mbps of upload traffic. Then you can go ahead and try and download something at the same time across that same link using the same CPE connection. If it were a telco-T1, the download would not even notice the upload. Wireless, being a half-duplex medium, does not compare to a full-duplex line. Licensed and true microwave systems are a different story. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Travis, We do not see that on our network. One provider's usage rarely has an effect on the others, that can be significantly noticed. When bandwidth management is done at the first hop at every cell site, this does not happen. I'm referring to using Trango 5830s. You are however bringing up the difference between time syncronized circuit based apposed to Ethernet products. With Ethernet, there is always a scale up and scale down of speed, based on the TCP protocol when limits are reached, but this has nothing to do with half or full duplex. The same degregation using Ethernet applies to traffic going in the same direction. For Ethernet to be a viable repalcement for T1, it must be of greater capacity. The second thing, distinguishing the difference between T1 and DSL classe, and which Wireless compares to, is more than just Speed and Duplex. SLAs, Repair Time, Network support, Peak Speed, etc. the idea is that unused bandwdith can never be gone back to regain use of. So offering 3 mbps speed allows network usage to be delivered sooner, so bandwidth is free for upcomming traffic, therefore making more traffic available for that upcomming need. Higher capacity allows more efficient use of the bandwdith. So we find that our customers tend to recognize a perception of much better speed on our wireless links than our T1 links, because they have fewer congestion times. The secret is for the bandwdith management to be provided equally on a PRIORITY basis. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Matt, This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps upload, it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic, music sharing, worms, etc.). With a wireless connection, even at 3.0Mbps, a 1.5Mbps upload will bring it almost to a stop. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: 3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is equivalent to 1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
for traffic to flow in one direction. So where the problem may be worse with Half Duplex, the problem still exists in some capacity with Full Duplex. I'd argue that its possible to generate enough pps on a Full Duplex Link in one direction, that will overload the processing power of the radio CPU, and the other direction still getting horrible performance even with no traffic passing in that other direction even though Full Duplex, because no CPU time is available for it. Unless each direction has its own CPU, which is not likely. This is an issue of whether the radio used can handle the number of PPS sent to it in high DOS situations. I'd also argue under this situation 4000 pps 1500 mbps, that the customer's use of the circuit in any capacity when a DOS of that type was happening, would be not possible, and justify immediate tech action to resolve, regardless of whether one direction of traffic was usable. I;ve never met a company where having one direction traffic only was acceptable or tolerable. You did however hit on an important clarification. A half duplex link can not distinguish on its own wether upload or download traffic at a given moment is priority or more important to the subscriber. When there is a large demand for legitimate broadband, why would the data in one direction be any more priority than the other, when capacity is reached? Either way the customer is compromised in throughout needs one direction or another. Doesn't it really mean that the customer needs more total bandwidth? Is it any more important that mail was sent and not received? Full Duplex is one way for a customer to solve that problem, and reserve bandwdith in one direction. But does that really solve the problem? Maybe if the circuit's intended use is for 100% VOIP a symetrical application. But not many circuits are used for that purpose. And if I really wanted to, I can set my bandwdith management to be seperate for upload and download, and immulate a Full Duplex connection, over the half duplex link. But what it really says to me is the importance that customers have front end queuing / IP prioritization when using bi-directional sensitive applications such as VOIP. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 4:45 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Hi, If someone wants to setup whatever wireless network they would like to test and then let me know, I'll gladly send you a CD you can pop in a laptop and connect at the CPE side. It will dish out 4,000pps and 1.5Mbps of upload traffic. Then you can go ahead and try and download something at the same time across that same link using the same CPE connection. If it were a telco-T1, the download would not even notice the upload. Wireless, being a half-duplex medium, does not compare to a full-duplex line. Licensed and true microwave systems are a different story. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Travis, We do not see that on our network. One provider's usage rarely has an effect on the others, that can be significantly noticed. When bandwidth management is done at the first hop at every cell site, this does not happen. I'm referring to using Trango 5830s. You are however bringing up the difference between time syncronized circuit based apposed to Ethernet products. With Ethernet, there is always a scale up and scale down of speed, based on the TCP protocol when limits are reached, but this has nothing to do with half or full duplex. The same degregation using Ethernet applies to traffic going in the same direction. For Ethernet to be a viable repalcement for T1, it must be of greater capacity. The second thing, distinguishing the difference between T1 and DSL classe, and which Wireless compares to, is more than just Speed and Duplex. SLAs, Repair Time, Network support, Peak Speed, etc. the idea is that unused bandwdith can never be gone back to regain use of. So offering 3 mbps speed allows network usage to be delivered sooner, so bandwidth is free for upcomming traffic, therefore making more traffic available for that upcomming need. Higher capacity allows more efficient use of the bandwdith. So we find that our customers tend to recognize a perception of much better speed on our wireless links than our T1 links, because they have fewer congestion times. The secret is for the bandwdith management to be provided equally on a PRIORITY basis. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Matt, This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps upload, it has
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
was acceptable or tolerable. You did however hit on an important clarification. A half duplex link can not distinguish on its own wether upload or download traffic at a given moment is priority or more important to the subscriber. When there is a large demand for legitimate broadband, why would the data in one direction be any more priority than the other, when capacity is reached? Either way the customer is compromised in throughout needs one direction or another. Doesn't it really mean that the customer needs more total bandwidth? Is it any more important that mail was sent and not received? Full Duplex is one way for a customer to solve that problem, and reserve bandwdith in one direction. But does that really solve the problem? Maybe if the circuit's intended use is for 100% VOIP a symetrical application. But not many circuits are used for that purpose. And if I really wanted to, I can set my bandwdith management to be seperate for upload and download, and immulate a Full Duplex connection, over the half duplex link. But what it really says to me is the importance that customers have front end queuing / IP prioritization when using bi-directional sensitive applications such as VOIP. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 4:45 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Hi, If someone wants to setup whatever wireless network they would like to test and then let me know, I'll gladly send you a CD you can pop in a laptop and connect at the CPE side. It will dish out 4,000pps and 1.5Mbps of upload traffic. Then you can go ahead and try and download something at the same time across that same link using the same CPE connection. If it were a telco-T1, the download would not even notice the upload. Wireless, being a half-duplex medium, does not compare to a full-duplex line. Licensed and true microwave systems are a different story. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Travis, We do not see that on our network. One provider's usage rarely has an effect on the others, that can be significantly noticed. When bandwidth management is done at the first hop at every cell site, this does not happen. I'm referring to using Trango 5830s. You are however bringing up the difference between time syncronized circuit based apposed to Ethernet products. With Ethernet, there is always a scale up and scale down of speed, based on the TCP protocol when limits are reached, but this has nothing to do with half or full duplex. The same degregation using Ethernet applies to traffic going in the same direction. For Ethernet to be a viable repalcement for T1, it must be of greater capacity. The second thing, distinguishing the difference between T1 and DSL classe, and which Wireless compares to, is more than just Speed and Duplex. SLAs, Repair Time, Network support, Peak Speed, etc. the idea is that unused bandwdith can never be gone back to regain use of. So offering 3 mbps speed allows network usage to be delivered sooner, so bandwidth is free for upcomming traffic, therefore making more traffic available for that upcomming need. Higher capacity allows more efficient use of the bandwdith. So we find that our customers tend to recognize a perception of much better speed on our wireless links than our T1 links, because they have fewer congestion times. The secret is for the bandwdith management to be provided equally on a PRIORITY basis. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Matt, This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps upload, it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic, music sharing, worms, etc.). With a wireless connection, even at 3.0Mbps, a 1.5Mbps upload will bring it almost to a stop. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: 3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is equivalent to 1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD radios can have dynamic time division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex link superior IMHO. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Tom, Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless? Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Chris, I agree with your finding. But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or what was the finding?) For example, its not only important to determine what terms the customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning they have for those terms that they identify with. For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed Internet was the term
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
Travis, Can you provide the Sysinfo screen for your Quest T1 router, showing 3 years please. Could you please post the sysinfo of the 5800 radio showing an uptime of 48 months My mistake. It has never failed in 4 years, however, it has been taken down by me for scheduled maintenance. I forgot, I took the link down about a year and a half ago for 30 seconds, so I could plug it into a new auto remote Reboot device. However, 567 days aint bad. # sysinfo [Hardware Version] 8002 [FPGA Version] 02103000 [Checksum] 7ADD5AB6 [Firmware Version] AP 1p11H8002D03100301 [Checksum] EF3391FF [Device ID] 00 01 DE 00 31 C7 [Base ID] 1 [AP ID] 2 [System Up Time] 567 day(s) 18:06:04 [Radio Temperature] 31 C [Opmode] ap [Default Opmode] ap [Opmode Start] 30 sec [IP] 10.0.1.2 [Subnet Mask] 255.255.255.0 [Gateway] 10.0.1.1 [Httpd Port] 80 [Httpd Status] listen [Telnetd Port] 23 [Telnetd Status] connected (10.0.1.1,53208) [Tftpd] disabled [MIR Threshold] off [MIR Threshold Kbps] 4096 [Active Channel] 6 v 5836 MHz [RF Rx Threshold] -80 dBm [RF Tx Power] 22 dBm Channel Table: (MHz) [Ch#01] 5736 [Ch#02] 5756 [Ch#03] 5776 [Ch#04] 5796 [Ch#05] 5816 [Ch#06] 5836 [Ch#07] 5260 [Ch#08] 5280 [Ch#09] 5300 [Ch#10] 5320 [Ch#11] 5340 [Ch#12] 5736 [Ch#13] 5736 [Ch#14] 5736 [Ch#15] 5736 [Ch#16] 5736 [Ch#17] 5736 [Ch#18] 5736 [Ch#19] 5736 [Ch#20] 5736 [Ch#21] 5736 [Ch#22] 5736 [Ch#23] 5736 [Ch#24] 5736 [Ch#25] 5736 [Ch#26] 5736 [Ch#27] 5736 [Ch#28] 5736 [Ch#29] 5736 [Ch#30] 5736 [Broadcast Packet] pass [Remarks] ap-2, ap-rockville Success. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 6:32 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Tom, Could you please post the sysinfo of the 5800 radio showing an uptime of 48 months... I've never seen one over 10 months (even with over 100 Trango AP's running now). :) Repair time for any down T1 lines has been less than 24 hours... usually 1-2 hours. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Travis, I have point to point T1 lines from Qwest that have been up 100% for the last 3 years. That's 100.0% uptime. Do you have any wireless links that have that type of reliability? Yes. I have a 12 mile backhaul using PtMP Trango 5800s, From Rockville, Md to Vienna, VA, that has not went down in 4 years. This year I had lost some high end subs in DC, due to excessive outages over a 6 month period. They bailed, because they doubted wireless, however, the ironic part was the fiber carrier was the faught. The Fiber partner had outages 5 to 2 ratio. 2 Outages Wireless, itemized as: 1 outage was due to antenna moving - repaired 2 hours. 1 outage interference and required channel change - repaired 30 minutes. 5 Outages - Fiber carrier, itemized as: 1. Serious Peering problem (level 3). - repair time 1 week 2. Fiber converter failure -packet loss - Fiber carrier could not respond for 8 hours, I performed the prepair while waiting for their tech. 3. Bad cell in battery backup - 4 hours, a second outage required for repair, 10 minutes. 4. Fiber end got dirty by airborn dust -packet loss - Intermittent problems 2 weeks while carrier denied a problem. I performed repair and put new end on cable. 5. Fiber carrier outage- fiber cut some where. For comparisons, both links wireless and Fiber were PtP links. Many T1s are delivered over Fiber now. Wireless can be just as reliable. Now I'll ask... Can you Qwest T1 deliver 10 mbps? How long did it take to get installed? For any of your T1s that did fail, what was the repair time? I am probably one of the largest WISP operators on this and any wireless list. I built our entire wireless backbone from the ground up starting in 1997. I spent 3 hours on a tower this morning installing two new AP's. I understand where wireless fits and where it doesn't. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: I'll take a wireless link over a T1 any day if for no other reason then the wireless link will be more reliable. You're never going to suffer the loss of a link due to a backhoe or a drunk driver hitting a pole, which are the two most likely reasons for a T1 failure. Personally, I believe that fixed wireless is truly better and I would argue someone has no business working for a fixed wireless company if they don't believe it too. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Tom, The original postition and question was are you comparing your wireless service to telco T1. After your posts, it's obvious that you are... and I would argue that a land-based line will ALWAYS be better than wireless, with all other factors being the same. Now, if you are able to save the customer $xx per month by using wireless, then there is an advantage. If you can provide other services, then there is an advantage. However, comparing a half
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
Wow... 567 days is the longest I've seen on any wireless radio... that's very cool. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Travis, Can you provide the Sysinfo screen for your Quest T1 router, showing 3 years please. Could you please post the sysinfo of the 5800 radio showing an uptime of 48 months My mistake. It has never failed in 4 years, however, it has been taken down by me for scheduled maintenance. I forgot, I took the link down about a year and a half ago for 30 seconds, so I could plug it into a new auto remote Reboot device. However, 567 days aint bad. # sysinfo [Hardware Version] 8002 [FPGA Version] 02103000 [Checksum] 7ADD5AB6 [Firmware Version] AP 1p11H8002D03100301 [Checksum] EF3391FF [Device ID] 00 01 DE 00 31 C7 [Base ID] 1 [AP ID] 2 [System Up Time] 567 day(s) 18:06:04 [Radio Temperature] 31 C [Opmode] ap [Default Opmode] ap [Opmode Start] 30 sec [IP] 10.0.1.2 [Subnet Mask] 255.255.255.0 [Gateway] 10.0.1.1 [Httpd Port] 80 [Httpd Status] listen [Telnetd Port] 23 [Telnetd Status] connected (10.0.1.1,53208) [Tftpd] disabled [MIR Threshold] off [MIR Threshold Kbps] 4096 [Active Channel] 6 v 5836 MHz [RF Rx Threshold] -80 dBm [RF Tx Power] 22 dBm Channel Table: (MHz) [Ch#01] 5736 [Ch#02] 5756 [Ch#03] 5776 [Ch#04] 5796 [Ch#05] 5816 [Ch#06] 5836 [Ch#07] 5260 [Ch#08] 5280 [Ch#09] 5300 [Ch#10] 5320 [Ch#11] 5340 [Ch#12] 5736 [Ch#13] 5736 [Ch#14] 5736 [Ch#15] 5736 [Ch#16] 5736 [Ch#17] 5736 [Ch#18] 5736 [Ch#19] 5736 [Ch#20] 5736 [Ch#21] 5736 [Ch#22] 5736 [Ch#23] 5736 [Ch#24] 5736 [Ch#25] 5736 [Ch#26] 5736 [Ch#27] 5736 [Ch#28] 5736 [Ch#29] 5736 [Ch#30] 5736 [Broadcast Packet] pass [Remarks] ap-2, ap-rockville Success. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 6:32 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Tom, Could you please post the sysinfo of the 5800 radio showing an uptime of 48 months... I've never seen one over 10 months (even with over 100 Trango AP's running now). :) Repair time for any down T1 lines has been less than 24 hours... usually 1-2 hours. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Travis, I have point to point T1 lines from Qwest that have been up 100% for the last 3 years. That's 100.0% uptime. Do you have any wireless links that have that type of reliability? Yes. I have a 12 mile backhaul using PtMP Trango 5800s, From Rockville, Md to Vienna, VA, that has not went down in 4 years. This year I had lost some high end subs in DC, due to excessive outages over a 6 month period. They bailed, because they doubted wireless, however, the ironic part was the fiber carrier was the faught. The Fiber partner had outages 5 to 2 ratio. 2 Outages Wireless, itemized as: 1 outage was due to antenna moving - repaired 2 hours. 1 outage interference and required channel change - repaired 30 minutes. 5 Outages - Fiber carrier, itemized as: 1. Serious Peering problem (level 3). - repair time 1 week 2. Fiber converter failure -packet loss - Fiber carrier could not respond for 8 hours, I performed the prepair while waiting for their tech. 3. Bad cell in battery backup - 4 hours, a second outage required for repair, 10 minutes. 4. Fiber end got dirty by airborn dust -packet loss - Intermittent problems 2 weeks while carrier denied a problem. I performed repair and put new end on cable. 5. Fiber carrier outage- fiber cut some where. For comparisons, both links wireless and Fiber were PtP links. Many T1s are delivered over Fiber now. Wireless can be just as reliable. Now I'll ask... Can you Qwest T1 deliver 10 mbps? How long did it take to get installed? For any of your T1s that did fail, what was the repair time? I am probably one of the largest WISP operators on this and any wireless list. I built our entire wireless backbone from the ground up starting in 1997. I spent 3 hours on a tower this morning installing two new AP's. I understand where wireless fits and where it doesn't. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: I'll take a wireless link over a T1 any day if for no other reason then the wireless link will be more reliable. You're never going to suffer the loss of a link due to a backhoe or a drunk driver hitting a pole, which are the two most likely reasons for a T1 failure. Personally, I believe that fixed wireless is truly better and I would argue someone has no business working for a fixed wireless company if they don't believe it too. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Tom, The original postition and question was are you comparing your wireless service to telco T1. After your posts, it's obvious that you are... and I would argue that a land-based line will ALWAYS be better than wireless, with all other factors being the same. Now, if you are able to save the customer $xx per month by using
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
new auto remote Reboot device You should go unplug it again to take the new auto remote reboot device to a radio that needs it. :) LOL Tom DeReggi wrote: Travis, Can you provide the Sysinfo screen for your Quest T1 router, showing 3 years please. Could you please post the sysinfo of the 5800 radio showing an uptime of 48 months My mistake. It has never failed in 4 years, however, it has been taken down by me for scheduled maintenance. I forgot, I took the link down about a year and a half ago for 30 seconds, so I could plug it into a new auto remote Reboot device. However, 567 days aint bad. # sysinfo [Hardware Version] 8002 [FPGA Version] 02103000 [Checksum] 7ADD5AB6 [Firmware Version] AP 1p11H8002D03100301 [Checksum] EF3391FF [Device ID] 00 01 DE 00 31 C7 [Base ID] 1 [AP ID] 2 [System Up Time] 567 day(s) 18:06:04 [Radio Temperature] 31 C [Opmode] ap [Default Opmode] ap [Opmode Start] 30 sec [IP] 10.0.1.2 [Subnet Mask] 255.255.255.0 [Gateway] 10.0.1.1 [Httpd Port] 80 [Httpd Status] listen [Telnetd Port] 23 [Telnetd Status] connected (10.0.1.1,53208) [Tftpd] disabled [MIR Threshold] off [MIR Threshold Kbps] 4096 [Active Channel] 6 v 5836 MHz [RF Rx Threshold] -80 dBm [RF Tx Power] 22 dBm Channel Table: (MHz) [Ch#01] 5736 [Ch#02] 5756 [Ch#03] 5776 [Ch#04] 5796 [Ch#05] 5816 [Ch#06] 5836 [Ch#07] 5260 [Ch#08] 5280 [Ch#09] 5300 [Ch#10] 5320 [Ch#11] 5340 [Ch#12] 5736 [Ch#13] 5736 [Ch#14] 5736 [Ch#15] 5736 [Ch#16] 5736 [Ch#17] 5736 [Ch#18] 5736 [Ch#19] 5736 [Ch#20] 5736 [Ch#21] 5736 [Ch#22] 5736 [Ch#23] 5736 [Ch#24] 5736 [Ch#25] 5736 [Ch#26] 5736 [Ch#27] 5736 [Ch#28] 5736 [Ch#29] 5736 [Ch#30] 5736 [Broadcast Packet] pass [Remarks] ap-2, ap-rockville Success. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 6:32 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Tom, Could you please post the sysinfo of the 5800 radio showing an uptime of 48 months... I've never seen one over 10 months (even with over 100 Trango AP's running now). :) Repair time for any down T1 lines has been less than 24 hours... usually 1-2 hours. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Travis, I have point to point T1 lines from Qwest that have been up 100% for the last 3 years. That's 100.0% uptime. Do you have any wireless links that have that type of reliability? Yes. I have a 12 mile backhaul using PtMP Trango 5800s, From Rockville, Md to Vienna, VA, that has not went down in 4 years. This year I had lost some high end subs in DC, due to excessive outages over a 6 month period. They bailed, because they doubted wireless, however, the ironic part was the fiber carrier was the faught. The Fiber partner had outages 5 to 2 ratio. 2 Outages Wireless, itemized as: 1 outage was due to antenna moving - repaired 2 hours. 1 outage interference and required channel change - repaired 30 minutes. 5 Outages - Fiber carrier, itemized as: 1. Serious Peering problem (level 3). - repair time 1 week 2. Fiber converter failure -packet loss - Fiber carrier could not respond for 8 hours, I performed the prepair while waiting for their tech. 3. Bad cell in battery backup - 4 hours, a second outage required for repair, 10 minutes. 4. Fiber end got dirty by airborn dust -packet loss - Intermittent problems 2 weeks while carrier denied a problem. I performed repair and put new end on cable. 5. Fiber carrier outage- fiber cut some where. For comparisons, both links wireless and Fiber were PtP links. Many T1s are delivered over Fiber now. Wireless can be just as reliable. Now I'll ask... Can you Qwest T1 deliver 10 mbps? How long did it take to get installed? For any of your T1s that did fail, what was the repair time? I am probably one of the largest WISP operators on this and any wireless list. I built our entire wireless backbone from the ground up starting in 1997. I spent 3 hours on a tower this morning installing two new AP's. I understand where wireless fits and where it doesn't. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: I'll take a wireless link over a T1 any day if for no other reason then the wireless link will be more reliable. You're never going to suffer the loss of a link due to a backhoe or a drunk driver hitting a pole, which are the two most likely reasons for a T1 failure. Personally, I believe that fixed wireless is truly better and I would argue someone has no business working for a fixed wireless company if they don't believe it too. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Tom, The original postition and question was are you comparing your wireless service to telco T1. After your posts, it's obvious that you are... and I would argue that a land-based line will ALWAYS be better than wireless, with all other factors being the same. Now, if you are able to save
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
great point! :) Scott Reed wrote: Who says the L in DSL must be Line? Call it Digital Subsciber Link and it works for the customer and uses our normal language for the radio connection. Scott Reed Owner NewWays Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration www.nwwnet.net http://www.nwwnet.net/ *-- Original Message ---* From: Rick Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 00:39:48 -0400 Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband We find we can NOT sell our service as Wireless Broadband As soon as we market it to customers as DSL or just plain High Speed Internet, we start scoring. Too many in this area have been educated against Open WIFI being BAD... The cable we install to the radio is a line, right ? It carries digital signals, right ? It allows our customer to become a subscriber, right ? DSL... ;) KyWiFi LLC wrote: I'm noticing more and more WISP's selling their wireless broadband service as DSL or Wireless DSL. I know that 75% of the people who call our sales number have a difficult time understanding what Wireless Broadband is. They already know what DSL is and that is what the majority of them ask for so I would be interested in hearing everyone's opinions on the pros and cons of a WISP labeling their wireless broadband service as DSL, wDSL or Wireless DSL instead of Fixed Wireless, WiFI or Wireless Broadband. If the masses are more familiar with the term DSL then I think we would generate more sales leads by advertising our (WISPs') broadband as DSL instead of Wireless Broadband. I'm sure the local telco would just love to see all of us selling DSL. Are there any legalities to this? Does wireless broadband qualify as DSL or a form of DSL in the eyes of the law? Is it legal for a WISP to sell their wireless broadband service as DSL? Sincerely, Shannon D. Denniston, Co-Founder KyWiFi, LLC - Mt. Sterling, Kentucky http://www.KyWiFi.com http://www.kywifi.com/ http://www.KyWiFiVoice.com http://www.kywifivoice.com/ Phone: 859.274.4033 A Broadband Phone Internet Provider == Wireless Broadband, Local Calling and UNLIMITED Long Distance only $69! No Taxes, No Regulatory Fees, No Hassles FREE Site Survey: http://www.KyWiFi.com http://www.kywifi.com/ == -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ *--- End of Original Message ---* -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
We conducted a few focus groups here. Most of the attendees were in the 18-24 yr. age bracket. It was amazing how many didn't identify with the word broadband. The words they responded to best were 'high speed internet Wireless was way down the list. Too much confusion with cellular. That said, I think wireless will hold its own as a marketing term eventually. Wireless is the sexy new darling of the world. It will be worth trading on the word eventually. The other part of this is that we are building brands as wireless providers, so it makes sense to keep that in the mix until the world catches up. In 95-96 I was out trying to sell people on the words internet, email and website. Those words didn't register then but they are now a permanent part of the American lexicon and in the American brain. The word wireless and what it represents will eventually do the same. chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:13 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Agreed excellent point (wireless scares and confuses people), except Why associate your service with DSL, a low grade $39 a month service, as advertized by Verizon? Why not associate it with T1 or just Broadband, higher quality services? If you associate it with DSL, then your are also associating it with the same quality and price. They think you are ripping them off charging $150 a month when they can get it for $39 a month down the street. When in accuality you are saving them 70% off their T1 line. Let me share a case that happened just yesterday. I got a call for DSL, they currently had voip and data on a T1, and they were looking for a DSL line to transfer the Internet Data to, to free up bandwidth on their T1 for their VOIP. It was a 15 minute close over the phone, since we had the MTU building lit, and represented we could have their new circuit installed the following day. I represented we were selling broadband, a T1 replacement. I made the mistake of leavingthe labeling of the contract heading as Wireless Broadband Agreement. The customer saw Wireless and didn;t sign, and asked to cancel order. I'm now likely going to win the client back, after most of yesterday on the phone answering questions from everyone under the sun. The problem was the customers computer consultant, had used Wireless in Texas, and had nothing but troubles. He stated tons of Lightning related electrical problem that disrupted service regularly. (It was a Wifi service he was using, there.) The question they asked me was, why is my service able to compare againt T1 apposed to DSL, to justify the higher price? They looked at it as a lower grade service. My solution however, was a high end service. It was an Engineered 30 mbps TDD 4 mile link with a Direct path from the building to my core fiber peering point. I even have fiber in the building at $500, but don't use it, because the fiber has 4-5 hops to my transit location compared to my wireless that is a direct shot and bypasses many points of failure. I'll probably still get the business but after much sales agrevation and providing a good number of references. So its a valid point that Wireless does still scare some people. And Poor quality Wireless providers ruin the rep for the good quality WISPs. But my bigger point is that some customers actually think DSL is more reliable than an engineered wireless link used to replace Fiber and T1s. So branding Wireless as DSL, does not helpthe industry, it lowers the value of what we do. I've been plaqued by this problem, as my company name is... RapidDSL. It gets me the leads, but it also starts every sales call out with why I'm charging more than $50 a month for my service, that I generally get $150-$500 a month for. We now market our service as Broadband period. It has made all the difference. We don't lie about using wireless, its plastered all over our website. But why advertise something that just confuses everyone and costs everyone time to sort out. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Rick Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 8:55 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband great point! :) Scott Reed wrote: Who says the L in DSL must be Line? Call it Digital Subsciber Link and it works for the customer and uses our normal language for the radio connection. Scott Reed Owner NewWays Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration www.nwwnet.net http://www.nwwnet.net/ *-- Original Message ---* From: Rick Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 00:39:48 -0400 Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband We find we can NOT sell our
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
Very well stated, Tom. I think there may reason to make some market distinction. In the part of rural Indiana I live in, servicing residential customers with wireless DSL is probably not bad marketing. Selling it that way to most businesses would not be so beneficial, especially when doing the type of service you describe. So, if a prospective residential asks about DSL, yeah, we do that, just without wires. If a business wants true T1 or similar replacement, I am not going to sell them DSL, I am going to sell them a T1 replacement. Marketing, marketing, it's all about the customer's perception, as I beleive Tom has pointed out in previous posts as well. Scott Reed Owner NewWays Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration www.nwwnet.net -- Original Message --- From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 10:13:10 -0400 Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Agreed excellent point (wireless scares and confuses people), except Why associate your service with DSL, a low grade $39 a month service, as advertized by Verizon? Why not associate it with T1 or just Broadband, higher quality services? If you associate it with DSL, then your are also associating it with the same quality and price. They think you are ripping them off charging $150 a month when they can get it for $39 a month down the street. When in accuality you are saving them 70% off their T1 line. Let me share a case that happened just yesterday. I got a call for DSL, they currently had voip and data on a T1, and they were looking for a DSL line to transfer the Internet Data to, to free up bandwidth on their T1 for their VOIP. It was a 15 minute close over the phone, since we had the MTU building lit, and represented we could have their new circuit installed the following day. I represented we were selling broadband, a T1 replacement. I made the mistake of leavingthe labeling of the contract heading as Wireless Broadband Agreement. The customer saw Wireless and didn;t sign, and asked to cancel order. I'm now likely going to win the client back, after most of yesterday on the phone answering questions from everyone under the sun. The problem was the customers computer consultant, had used Wireless in Texas, and had nothing but troubles. He stated tons of Lightning related electrical problem that disrupted service regularly. (It was a Wifi service he was using, there.) The question they asked me was, why is my service able to compare againt T1 apposed to DSL, to justify the higher price? They looked at it as a lower grade service. My solution however, was a high end service. It was an Engineered 30 mbps TDD 4 mile link with a Direct path from the building to my core fiber peering point. I even have fiber in the building at $500, but don't use it, because the fiber has 4-5 hops to my transit location compared to my wireless that is a direct shot and bypasses many points of failure. I'll probably still get the business but after much sales agrevation and providing a good number of references. So its a valid point that Wireless does still scare some people. And Poor quality Wireless providers ruin the rep for the good quality WISPs. But my bigger point is that some customers actually think DSL is more reliable than an engineered wireless link used to replace Fiber and T1s. So branding Wireless as DSL, does not helpthe industry, it lowers the value of what we do. I've been plaqued by this problem, as my company name is... RapidDSL. It gets me the leads, but it also starts every sales call out with why I'm charging more than $50 a month for my service, that I generally get $150-$500 a month for. We now market our service as Broadband period. It has made all the difference. We don't lie about using wireless, its plastered all over our website. But why advertise something that just confuses everyone and costs everyone time to sort out. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Rick Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 8:55 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband great point! :) Scott Reed wrote: Who says the L in DSL must be Line? Call it Digital Subsciber Link and it works for the customer and uses our normal language for the radio connection. Scott Reed Owner NewWays Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration www.nwwnet.net http://www.nwwnet.net
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
Tom, Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless? Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Chris, I agree with your finding. But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or what was the finding?) For example, its not only important to determine what terms the customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning they have for those terms that they identify with. For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed Internet was the term that the consumer best identified with. However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much with DialUP service as they do with Broadband. And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL or Cable services. Why do we want to create the image of offering commodity services, design for huge over subscription, low repair SLAs, and best effort? Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as setting standards for quality? We don't want to be identified as that. We want to be something better. Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi services to your clients, and you are striving to be a competitor to Cable and DSL quality, sure Brand the product as DSL, and its a good thing. And please do so, so your wireless is not identified with what we offer, branding high quality fiber extension and T1 replacement services. In your focus group did you get any results on their perception of quality that they associated with Cable and DSL or the term High Speed Internet? Would you suggest branding your T1 or Fiber offerings as High Speed Internet, since customers best identify with that term? Maybe we should be branding our service as Wi-Fiber. or Maybe Ethernet Internet Access (of course like end users will know what Ethernet means.) Its a tough call because if we called our service Fiber or T1 we'd most likely be liars based on their true definitions. Nothing exists realting to quality for us to piggy back on. All though Broadband may not be as well recognized, its doesn;t associate us with Telcos or Cable companies necessarilly. Broadband is truthfully defined as a general term to cover any media type of delivery of Internet Access. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: chris cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:34 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband We conducted a few focus groups here. Most of the attendees were in the 18-24 yr. age bracket. It was amazing how many didn't identify with the word broadband. The words they responded to best were 'high speed internet Wireless was way down the list. Too much confusion with cellular. That said, I think wireless will hold its own as a marketing term eventually. Wireless is the sexy new darling of the world. It will be worth trading on the word eventually. The other part of this is that we are building brands as wireless providers, so it makes sense to keep that in the mix until the world catches up. In 95-96 I was out trying to sell people on the words internet, email and website. Those words didn't register then but they are now a permanent part of the American lexicon and in the American brain. The word wireless and what it represents will eventually do the same. chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:13 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Agreed excellent point (wireless scares and confuses people), except Why associate your service with DSL, a low grade $39 a month service, as advertized by Verizon? Why not associate it with T1 or just Broadband, higher quality services? If you associate it with DSL, then your are also associating it with the same quality and price. They think you are ripping them off charging $150 a month when they can get it for $39 a month down the street. When in accuality you are saving them 70% off their T1 line. Let me share a case that happened just yesterday. I got a call for DSL, they currently had voip and data on a T1, and they were looking for a DSL line to transfer the Internet Data to, to free up bandwidth on their T1 for their VOIP. It was a 15 minute close over the phone, since we had the MTU building lit, and represented we could have their new circuit installed the following day. I represented we were selling broadband, a T1 replacement. I made the mistake of leavingthe labeling of the contract heading as Wireless Broadband Agreement. The customer saw Wireless and didn;t sign, and asked to cancel order. I'm now likely going to win the client back, after most of yesterday on the phone answering questions from everyone under the sun. The problem was the customers computer
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is equivalent to 1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD radios can have dynamic time division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex link superior IMHO. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Tom, Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless? Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Chris, I agree with your finding. But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or what was the finding?) For example, its not only important to determine what terms the customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning they have for those terms that they identify with. For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed Internet was the term that the consumer best identified with. However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much with DialUP service as they do with Broadband. And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL or Cable services. Why do we want to create the image of offering commodity services, design for huge over subscription, low repair SLAs, and best effort? Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as setting standards for quality? We don't want to be identified as that. We want to be something better. Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi services to your clients, and you are striving to be a competitor to Cable and DSL quality, sure Brand the product as DSL, and its a good thing. And please do so, so your wireless is not identified with what we offer, branding high quality fiber extension and T1 replacement services. In your focus group did you get any results on their perception of quality that they associated with Cable and DSL or the term High Speed Internet? Would you suggest branding your T1 or Fiber offerings as High Speed Internet, since customers best identify with that term? Maybe we should be branding our service as Wi-Fiber. or Maybe Ethernet Internet Access (of course like end users will know what Ethernet means.) Its a tough call because if we called our service Fiber or T1 we'd most likely be liars based on their true definitions. Nothing exists realting to quality for us to piggy back on. All though Broadband may not be as well recognized, its doesn;t associate us with Telcos or Cable companies necessarilly. Broadband is truthfully defined as a general term to cover any media type of delivery of Internet Access. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: chris cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:34 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband We conducted a few focus groups here. Most of the attendees were in the 18-24 yr. age bracket. It was amazing how many didn't identify with the word broadband. The words they responded to best were 'high speed internet Wireless was way down the list. Too much confusion with cellular. That said, I think wireless will hold its own as a marketing term eventually. Wireless is the sexy new darling of the world. It will be worth trading on the word eventually. The other part of this is that we are building brands as wireless providers, so it makes sense to keep that in the mix until the world catches up. In 95-96 I was out trying to sell people on the words internet, email and website. Those words didn't register then but they are now a permanent part of the American lexicon and in the American brain. The word wireless and what it represents will eventually do the same. chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:13 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Agreed excellent point (wireless scares and confuses people), except Why associate your service with DSL, a low grade $39 a month service, as advertized by Verizon? Why not associate it with T1 or just Broadband, higher quality services? If you associate it with DSL, then your are also associating it with the same quality and price. They think you are ripping them off charging $150 a month when they can get it for $39 a month down the street. When in accuality you are saving them 70% off their T1 line. Let me share a case that happened just yesterday. I got a call for DSL, they currently had voip and data on a T1, and they were looking for a DSL line to transfer the Internet Data to, to free up bandwidth on their T1 for their VOIP. It was a 15 minute close over the phone, since we had the MTU building lit, and represented we could have their new circuit installed the following day. I represented we were selling broadband, a T1 replacement. I made the mistake of leavingthe labeling of the contract heading as Wireless Broadband Agreement
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
Matt, This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps upload, it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic, music sharing, worms, etc.). With a wireless connection, even at 3.0Mbps, a 1.5Mbps upload will bring it almost to a stop. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: 3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is equivalent to 1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD radios can have dynamic time division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex link superior IMHO. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Tom, Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless? Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Chris, I agree with your finding. But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or what was the finding?) For example, its not only important to determine what terms the customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning they have for those terms that they identify with. For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed Internet was the term that the consumer best identified with. However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much with DialUP service as they do with Broadband. And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL or Cable services. Why do we want to create the image of offering commodity services, design for huge over subscription, low repair SLAs, and best effort? Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as setting standards for quality? We don't want to be identified as that. We want to be something better. Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi services to your clients, and you are striving to be a competitor to Cable and DSL quality, sure Brand the product as DSL, and its a good thing. And please do so, so your wireless is not identified with what we offer, branding high quality fiber extension and T1 replacement services. In your focus group did you get any results on their perception of quality that they associated with Cable and DSL or the term High Speed Internet? Would you suggest branding your T1 or Fiber offerings as High Speed Internet, since customers best identify with that term? Maybe we should be branding our service as Wi-Fiber. or Maybe Ethernet Internet Access (of course like end users will know what Ethernet means.) Its a tough call because if we called our service Fiber or T1 we'd most likely be liars based on their true definitions. Nothing exists realting to quality for us to piggy back on. All though Broadband may not be as well recognized, its doesn;t associate us with Telcos or Cable companies necessarilly. Broadband is truthfully defined as a general term to cover any media type of delivery of Internet Access. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: chris cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:34 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband We conducted a few focus groups here. Most of the attendees were in the 18-24 yr. age bracket. It was amazing how many didn't identify with the word broadband. The words they responded to best were 'high speed internet Wireless was way down the list. Too much confusion with cellular. That said, I think wireless will hold its own as a marketing term eventually. Wireless is the sexy new darling of the world. It will be worth trading on the word eventually. The other part of this is that we are building brands as wireless providers, so it makes sense to keep that in the mix until the world catches up. In 95-96 I was out trying to sell people on the words internet, email and website. Those words didn't register then but they are now a permanent part of the American lexicon and in the American brain. The word wireless and what it represents will eventually do the same. chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:13 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Agreed excellent point (wireless scares and confuses people), except Why associate your service with DSL, a low grade $39 a month service, as advertized by Verizon? Why not associate it with T1 or just Broadband, higher quality services? If you associate it with DSL, then your are also associating it with the same quality and price. They think you are ripping them off charging $150 a month when they can get it for $39 a month down the street. When in accuality you are saving them 70% off their T1 line. Let me share a case that happened just yesterday. I got a call for DSL, they currently had voip and data on a T1, and they were looking for a DSL line to transfer the Internet Data to, to free up bandwidth on their T1 for their VOIP
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
It is true. Basic logic says that 3Mbps divided in half means you can get 1.5Mbps. Further, find any device that can have strict time division partitioning set and test it yourself. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Matt, This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps upload, it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic, music sharing, worms, etc.). With a wireless connection, even at 3.0Mbps, a 1.5Mbps upload will bring it almost to a stop. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: 3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is equivalent to 1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD radios can have dynamic time division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex link superior IMHO. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Tom, Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless? Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Chris, I agree with your finding. But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or what was the finding?) For example, its not only important to determine what terms the customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning they have for those terms that they identify with. For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed Internet was the term that the consumer best identified with. However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much with DialUP service as they do with Broadband. And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL or Cable services. Why do we want to create the image of offering commodity services, design for huge over subscription, low repair SLAs, and best effort? Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as setting standards for quality? We don't want to be identified as that. We want to be something better. Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi services to your clients, and you are striving to be a competitor to Cable and DSL quality, sure Brand the product as DSL, and its a good thing. And please do so, so your wireless is not identified with what we offer, branding high quality fiber extension and T1 replacement services. In your focus group did you get any results on their perception of quality that they associated with Cable and DSL or the term High Speed Internet? Would you suggest branding your T1 or Fiber offerings as High Speed Internet, since customers best identify with that term? Maybe we should be branding our service as Wi-Fiber. or Maybe Ethernet Internet Access (of course like end users will know what Ethernet means.) Its a tough call because if we called our service Fiber or T1 we'd most likely be liars based on their true definitions. Nothing exists realting to quality for us to piggy back on. All though Broadband may not be as well recognized, its doesn;t associate us with Telcos or Cable companies necessarilly. Broadband is truthfully defined as a general term to cover any media type of delivery of Internet Access. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: chris cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:34 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband We conducted a few focus groups here. Most of the attendees were in the 18-24 yr. age bracket. It was amazing how many didn't identify with the word broadband. The words they responded to best were 'high speed internet Wireless was way down the list. Too much confusion with cellular. That said, I think wireless will hold its own as a marketing term eventually. Wireless is the sexy new darling of the world. It will be worth trading on the word eventually. The other part of this is that we are building brands as wireless providers, so it makes sense to keep that in the mix until the world catches up. In 95-96 I was out trying to sell people on the words internet, email and website. Those words didn't register then but they are now a permanent part of the American lexicon and in the American brain. The word wireless and what it represents will eventually do the same. chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:13 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Agreed excellent point (wireless scares and confuses people), except Why associate your service with DSL, a low grade $39 a month service, as advertized by Verizon? Why not associate it with T1 or just Broadband, higher quality services? If you associate it with DSL, then your are also associating it with the same quality and price. They think you are ripping them off charging $150 a month when they can get it for $39 a month down the street. When in accuality you are saving them 70% off their T1 line. Let me share a case
RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
Higher ARPU WISPs in the business are selling their services as WiMAX -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of KyWiFi LLC Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 10:56 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband I'm noticing more and more WISP's selling their wireless broadband service as DSL or Wireless DSL. I know that 75% of the people who call our sales number have a difficult time understanding what Wireless Broadband is. They already know what DSL is and that is what the majority of them ask for so I would be interested in hearing everyone's opinions on the pros and cons of a WISP labeling their wireless broadband service as DSL, wDSL or Wireless DSL instead of Fixed Wireless, WiFI or Wireless Broadband. If the masses are more familiar with the term DSL then I think we would generate more sales leads by advertising our (WISPs') broadband as DSL instead of Wireless Broadband. I'm sure the local telco would just love to see all of us selling DSL. Are there any legalities to this? Does wireless broadband qualify as DSL or a form of DSL in the eyes of the law? Is it legal for a WISP to sell their wireless broadband service as DSL? Sincerely, Shannon D. Denniston, Co-Founder KyWiFi, LLC - Mt. Sterling, Kentucky http://www.KyWiFi.com http://www.KyWiFiVoice.com Phone: 859.274.4033 A Broadband Phone Internet Provider == Wireless Broadband, Local Calling and UNLIMITED Long Distance only $69! No Taxes, No Regulatory Fees, No Hassles FREE Site Survey: http://www.KyWiFi.com == -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
snip Maybe we should be branding our service as Wi-Fiber. or Maybe Ethernet Internet Access (of course like end users will know what Ethernet means.) /snip Spend trying to build a new brand around Wi-Fiber or just ride Intel / WiMAX Forum's Marketing machine... Here's the thing, chances are, whatever name you choose to brand this technology, the customer will probably be ignorant (it's still a new technology, eh?) However, when talking to them, and saying something like just google WiMAX to learn about our technology -- they'll see hundreds (if not thousands) of entries from reputable business magazines (from INC to Business Week to Fortune) all talking about how WiMAX is better than WiFi Cellular and how it can compete against T1s, they'll go ah-hah Not to be offensive here, but most WISPs don't know @[EMAIL PROTECTED] about sales marketing - Just remember, it takes about 8 touches to effectively sell a medium ARPU ($200-600 / month) data account -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
Tom DeReggi wrote: I've been plaqued by this problem, as my company name is... RapidDSL. It gets me the leads, but it also starts every sales call out with why I'm charging more than $50 a month for my service, that I generally get $150-$500 a month for. I'm seeing this company name as a problem more and more. If Wi-Fi or DSL is in your name, people's perception of you is different. Why would they buy a T1 or 10MB circuit from a company that specializes in DSL? Your name is your brand. Your brand only has room for one perception in the customers mind. It is very easy to get a DBA or Fictious Name registered with the Secretary of your State. So while your company is RapidDSL it could be dba RapidData, RapidPacket, or RapidBB. Regards, Peter RAD-INFO, Inc. BTW, the newsletter is out: http://4isps.com/newsletter.htm -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
We don't, but there is no need to. 3 mbps half duplex = 1.5 mbps full duplex. (Actually bettter, because when upload speed not used, its there to be used for high speeds in the other direction.) Our router bandwidth management allows setting speed in both directions (using HTB). Its one marketing trick that works to our advantage. We advertise symetrical, not simultaneous Full Duplex. That means we have same speed both directions, not top speed in both directions at the same time. So a client pushing 2 mbps down and 1 mbps up, would equal a 3 mbps link. We can advertise speeds up to the max speed someone can acheive in a specific direction. Because most clients do not use equal speed in both direction, nuch of their Full Duplex bandwidth just goes wasted and unused on T1s. So 3 mbps is perceived as twice the speed than their T1 for those that don;t catch the difference between full and half duplex. And a great replacement for their T1. Those that do understand the difference, well, we are still offering equivellent capacity. What also works to our advantage is that T1 providers also generally don't offer guaranteed bandwidth either. A T1 might be as low as $500 a month, but if the buy a true MCI guaranteed bandwidth circuit, paying 95%tile, they'd easilly be paying over $1000 buck for the T1 link. So technically competitor's T1s are MIR bandwidth under their SLA. So we also spec our product at MIR. We stay away from any term like Best Effort associated with commodity services like DSL. The second we take out local loop costs, we can always be more cost effective, with out sacrificing quality on the link at the back end, because we actually ahve a lower front end cost. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 11:52 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Tom, Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless? Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Chris, I agree with your finding. But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or what was the finding?) For example, its not only important to determine what terms the customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning they have for those terms that they identify with. For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed Internet was the term that the consumer best identified with. However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much with DialUP service as they do with Broadband. And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL or Cable services. Why do we want to create the image of offering commodity services, design for huge over subscription, low repair SLAs, and best effort? Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as setting standards for quality? We don't want to be identified as that. We want to be something better. Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi services to your clients, and you are striving to be a competitor to Cable and DSL quality, sure Brand the product as DSL, and its a good thing. And please do so, so your wireless is not identified with what we offer, branding high quality fiber extension and T1 replacement services. In your focus group did you get any results on their perception of quality that they associated with Cable and DSL or the term High Speed Internet? Would you suggest branding your T1 or Fiber offerings as High Speed Internet, since customers best identify with that term? Maybe we should be branding our service as Wi-Fiber. or Maybe Ethernet Internet Access (of course like end users will know what Ethernet means.) Its a tough call because if we called our service Fiber or T1 we'd most likely be liars based on their true definitions. Nothing exists realting to quality for us to piggy back on. All though Broadband may not be as well recognized, its doesn;t associate us with Telcos or Cable companies necessarilly. Broadband is truthfully defined as a general term to cover any media type of delivery of Internet Access. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: chris cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:34 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband We conducted a few focus groups here. Most of the attendees were in the 18-24 yr. age bracket. It was amazing how many didn't identify with the word broadband. The words they responded to best were 'high speed internet Wireless was way down the list. Too much confusion with cellular. That said, I think wireless will hold its own as a marketing term eventually. Wireless is the sexy new darling of the world
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
Travis, We do not see that on our network. One provider's usage rarely has an effect on the others, that can be significantly noticed. When bandwidth management is done at the first hop at every cell site, this does not happen. I'm referring to using Trango 5830s. You are however bringing up the difference between time syncronized circuit based apposed to Ethernet products. With Ethernet, there is always a scale up and scale down of speed, based on the TCP protocol when limits are reached, but this has nothing to do with half or full duplex. The same degregation using Ethernet applies to traffic going in the same direction. For Ethernet to be a viable repalcement for T1, it must be of greater capacity. The second thing, distinguishing the difference between T1 and DSL classe, and which Wireless compares to, is more than just Speed and Duplex. SLAs, Repair Time, Network support, Peak Speed, etc. the idea is that unused bandwdith can never be gone back to regain use of. So offering 3 mbps speed allows network usage to be delivered sooner, so bandwidth is free for upcomming traffic, therefore making more traffic available for that upcomming need. Higher capacity allows more efficient use of the bandwdith. So we find that our customers tend to recognize a perception of much better speed on our wireless links than our T1 links, because they have fewer congestion times. The secret is for the bandwdith management to be provided equally on a PRIORITY basis. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Matt, This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps upload, it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic, music sharing, worms, etc.). With a wireless connection, even at 3.0Mbps, a 1.5Mbps upload will bring it almost to a stop. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: 3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is equivalent to 1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD radios can have dynamic time division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex link superior IMHO. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Tom, Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless? Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Chris, I agree with your finding. But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or what was the finding?) For example, its not only important to determine what terms the customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning they have for those terms that they identify with. For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed Internet was the term that the consumer best identified with. However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much with DialUP service as they do with Broadband. And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL or Cable services. Why do we want to create the image of offering commodity services, design for huge over subscription, low repair SLAs, and best effort? Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as setting standards for quality? We don't want to be identified as that. We want to be something better. Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi services to your clients, and you are striving to be a competitor to Cable and DSL quality, sure Brand the product as DSL, and its a good thing. And please do so, so your wireless is not identified with what we offer, branding high quality fiber extension and T1 replacement services. In your focus group did you get any results on their perception of quality that they associated with Cable and DSL or the term High Speed Internet? Would you suggest branding your T1 or Fiber offerings as High Speed Internet, since customers best identify with that term? Maybe we should be branding our service as Wi-Fiber. or Maybe Ethernet Internet Access (of course like end users will know what Ethernet means.) Its a tough call because if we called our service Fiber or T1 we'd most likely be liars based on their true definitions. Nothing exists realting to quality for us to piggy back on. All though Broadband may not be as well recognized, its doesn;t associate us with Telcos or Cable companies necessarilly. Broadband is truthfully defined as a general term to cover any media type of delivery of Internet Access. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: chris cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:34 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband We conducted a few focus groups here. Most of the attendees were in the 18-24 yr. age bracket
RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
On a good system like canopy or polling (nstream or turbocell) I have been able to run a FDX style link, downloading 1.5Mbps while uploading 1.5Mbps, using Nstream I have done 15Mbps pseudo-fdx Nstream2 allows a true FDX channel but I believe only PTP Dan Metcalf Wireless Broadband Systems www.wbisp.com 781-566-2053 ext 6201 1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783 [EMAIL PROTECTED] support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:22 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband It is true. Basic logic says that 3Mbps divided in half means you can get 1.5Mbps. Further, find any device that can have strict time division partitioning set and test it yourself. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Matt, This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps upload, it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic, music sharing, worms, etc.). With a wireless connection, even at 3.0Mbps, a 1.5Mbps upload will bring it almost to a stop. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: 3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is equivalent to 1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD radios can have dynamic time division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex link superior IMHO. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Tom, Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless? Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Chris, I agree with your finding. But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or what was the finding?) For example, its not only important to determine what terms the customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning they have for those terms that they identify with. For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed Internet was the term that the consumer best identified with. However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much with DialUP service as they do with Broadband. And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL or Cable services. Why do we want to create the image of offering commodity services, design for huge over subscription, low repair SLAs, and best effort? Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as setting standards for quality? We don't want to be identified as that. We want to be something better. Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi services to your clients, and you are striving to be a competitor to Cable and DSL quality, sure Brand the product as DSL, and its a good thing. And please do so, so your wireless is not identified with what we offer, branding high quality fiber extension and T1 replacement services. In your focus group did you get any results on their perception of quality that they associated with Cable and DSL or the term High Speed Internet? Would you suggest branding your T1 or Fiber offerings as High Speed Internet, since customers best identify with that term? Maybe we should be branding our service as Wi-Fiber. or Maybe Ethernet Internet Access (of course like end users will know what Ethernet means.) Its a tough call because if we called our service Fiber or T1 we'd most likely be liars based on their true definitions. Nothing exists realting to quality for us to piggy back on. All though Broadband may not be as well recognized, its doesn;t associate us with Telcos or Cable companies necessarilly. Broadband is truthfully defined as a general term to cover any media type of delivery of Internet Access. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: chris cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:34 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband We conducted a few focus groups here. Most of the attendees were in the 18-24 yr. age bracket. It was amazing how many didn't identify with the word broadband. The words they responded to best were 'high speed internet Wireless was way down the list. Too much confusion with cellular. That said, I think wireless will hold its own as a marketing term eventually. Wireless is the sexy new darling of the world. It will be worth trading on the word eventually. The other part of this is that we are building brands as wireless providers, so it makes sense to keep that in the mix until the world catches up. In 95-96 I was out trying to sell people on the words internet, email and website. Those words didn't register then but they are now a permanent part of the American lexicon and in the American brain. The word wireless and what it represents will eventually do
RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
Our noc is connected w/ a 5.8Ghz PTP Link. We do streaming audio from that NOC while also providing internet access.. During the day the streaming audio hits over 2Mbps and during that same time we pulling 2Mbps to 4Mbps from the internet. The system is definitely HDX but has no problem sending and receiving data providing that there is capacity on the radio link, it just switch's rx/tx so fast Dan Metcalf Wireless Broadband Systems www.wbisp.com 781-566-2053 ext 6201 1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783 [EMAIL PROTECTED] support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 4:46 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Hi, If someone wants to setup whatever wireless network they would like to test and then let me know, I'll gladly send you a CD you can pop in a laptop and connect at the CPE side. It will dish out 4,000pps and 1.5Mbps of upload traffic. Then you can go ahead and try and download something at the same time across that same link using the same CPE connection. If it were a telco-T1, the download would not even notice the upload. Wireless, being a half-duplex medium, does not compare to a full-duplex line. Licensed and true microwave systems are a different story. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Travis, We do not see that on our network. One provider's usage rarely has an effect on the others, that can be significantly noticed. When bandwidth management is done at the first hop at every cell site, this does not happen. I'm referring to using Trango 5830s. You are however bringing up the difference between time syncronized circuit based apposed to Ethernet products. With Ethernet, there is always a scale up and scale down of speed, based on the TCP protocol when limits are reached, but this has nothing to do with half or full duplex. The same degregation using Ethernet applies to traffic going in the same direction. For Ethernet to be a viable repalcement for T1, it must be of greater capacity. The second thing, distinguishing the difference between T1 and DSL classe, and which Wireless compares to, is more than just Speed and Duplex. SLAs, Repair Time, Network support, Peak Speed, etc. the idea is that unused bandwdith can never be gone back to regain use of. So offering 3 mbps speed allows network usage to be delivered sooner, so bandwidth is free for upcomming traffic, therefore making more traffic available for that upcomming need. Higher capacity allows more efficient use of the bandwdith. So we find that our customers tend to recognize a perception of much better speed on our wireless links than our T1 links, because they have fewer congestion times. The secret is for the bandwdith management to be provided equally on a PRIORITY basis. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Matt, This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps upload, it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic, music sharing, worms, etc.). With a wireless connection, even at 3.0Mbps, a 1.5Mbps upload will bring it almost to a stop. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: 3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is equivalent to 1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD radios can have dynamic time division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex link superior IMHO. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Tom, Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless? Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Chris, I agree with your finding. But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or what was the finding?) For example, its not only important to determine what terms the customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning they have for those terms that they identify with. For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed Internet was the term that the consumer best identified with. However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much with DialUP service as they do with Broadband. And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL or Cable services. Why do we want to create the image of offering commodity services, design for huge over subscription, low repair SLAs, and best effort? Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as setting standards for quality? We don't want to be identified as that. We want to be something better. Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
Travis, I'd love to perform your test. Send me the CD. Understanding that I will provision the customer at 3 mbps on our first hop router, using Trango 10mbps PtMP radio link, and that your CD test will generate 1500mbps of data transfer. There are three seperate issues here. 1) One user's connection able to effect another user's connection, and 2) On one particular link, their upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under normal opperation within acceptable use policy, and 3) On one particular link, their upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under a Denial of Service situation. With any type of broadband, if the capacity of a link is saturated, it results in packet loss and performance loss for the individual's connection. Its up to the end user to protect against violation of acceptable use policy like viruses that deliver abnormal PPS, or any queueing needed to allow fair priority of data type on the LAN side of the link. These problems can also all be solved with a feature rich client side router before plugging to our Broadband, regardless of the Duplex of our link. In other words, The same performance problems will result on a full Duplex link, if one direction gets saturated, and that same direction traffic will result in packet loss, and all communication generally requires some communication in each of the direction for traffic to flow in one direction. So where the problem may be worse with Half Duplex, the problem still exists in some capacity with Full Duplex. I'd argue that its possible to generate enough pps on a Full Duplex Link in one direction, that will overload the processing power of the radio CPU, and the other direction still getting horrible performance even with no traffic passing in that other direction even though Full Duplex, because no CPU time is available for it. Unless each direction has its own CPU, which is not likely. This is an issue of whether the radio used can handle the number of PPS sent to it in high DOS situations. I'd also argue under this situation 4000 pps 1500 mbps, that the customer's use of the circuit in any capacity when a DOS of that type was happening, would be not possible, and justify immediate tech action to resolve, regardless of whether one direction of traffic was usable. I;ve never met a company where having one direction traffic only was acceptable or tolerable. You did however hit on an important clarification. A half duplex link can not distinguish on its own wether upload or download traffic at a given moment is priority or more important to the subscriber. When there is a large demand for legitimate broadband, why would the data in one direction be any more priority than the other, when capacity is reached? Either way the customer is compromised in throughout needs one direction or another. Doesn't it really mean that the customer needs more total bandwidth? Is it any more important that mail was sent and not received? Full Duplex is one way for a customer to solve that problem, and reserve bandwdith in one direction. But does that really solve the problem? Maybe if the circuit's intended use is for 100% VOIP a symetrical application. But not many circuits are used for that purpose. And if I really wanted to, I can set my bandwdith management to be seperate for upload and download, and immulate a Full Duplex connection, over the half duplex link. But what it really says to me is the importance that customers have front end queuing / IP prioritization when using bi-directional sensitive applications such as VOIP. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 4:45 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Hi, If someone wants to setup whatever wireless network they would like to test and then let me know, I'll gladly send you a CD you can pop in a laptop and connect at the CPE side. It will dish out 4,000pps and 1.5Mbps of upload traffic. Then you can go ahead and try and download something at the same time across that same link using the same CPE connection. If it were a telco-T1, the download would not even notice the upload. Wireless, being a half-duplex medium, does not compare to a full-duplex line. Licensed and true microwave systems are a different story. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Travis, We do not see that on our network. One provider's usage rarely has an effect on the others, that can be significantly noticed. When bandwidth management is done at the first hop at every cell site, this does not happen. I'm referring to using Trango 5830s. You are however bringing up the difference between time syncronized circuit based apposed to Ethernet products. With Ethernet, there is always a scale up and scale down of speed, based on the TCP protocol
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
We find we can NOT sell our service as Wireless Broadband As soon as we market it to customers as DSL or just plain High Speed Internet, we start scoring. Too many in this area have been educated against Open WIFI being BAD... The cable we install to the radio is a line, right ? It carries digital signals, right ? It allows our customer to become a subscriber, right ? DSL... ;) KyWiFi LLC wrote: I'm noticing more and more WISP's selling their wireless broadband service as DSL or Wireless DSL. I know that 75% of the people who call our sales number have a difficult time understanding what Wireless Broadband is. They already know what DSL is and that is what the majority of them ask for so I would be interested in hearing everyone's opinions on the pros and cons of a WISP labeling their wireless broadband service as DSL, wDSL or Wireless DSL instead of Fixed Wireless, WiFI or Wireless Broadband. If the masses are more familiar with the term DSL then I think we would generate more sales leads by advertising our (WISPs') broadband as DSL instead of Wireless Broadband. I'm sure the local telco would just love to see all of us selling DSL. Are there any legalities to this? Does wireless broadband qualify as DSL or a form of DSL in the eyes of the law? Is it legal for a WISP to sell their wireless broadband service as DSL? Sincerely, Shannon D. Denniston, Co-Founder KyWiFi, LLC - Mt. Sterling, Kentucky http://www.KyWiFi.com http://www.KyWiFiVoice.com Phone: 859.274.4033 A Broadband Phone Internet Provider == Wireless Broadband, Local Calling and UNLIMITED Long Distance only $69! No Taxes, No Regulatory Fees, No Hassles FREE Site Survey: http://www.KyWiFi.com == -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
