Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
We kind of got sucked into this. We have been working with Cisco as a muni provider and were offered the Mesh training, which was good. A City IT manager found out about the mesh and wanted it-before it was even available-which wasn't so good. We could either install it and make some money or walk away and not make money. Based on the data sheets, I had high hopes, now that reality has set in, I am disappointed. I understand why Ciscos pricing is higher-they bought Airespace and need to get their investment back. That doesn't justify the fact the their gear is 3-4 x what the competitors is. We are dealing with cities, and most of them have a Catalyst 6500 in the back room. They tend to standardize on Cisco and are willing to pay the price. Dos airmatrix have a dual radio mesh box? I just looked and the mesh boxes seem to be single radio 2.4 only. John Jeffrey Thomas wrote: Yay branding. Actually my commpany is certified on cisco mesh. Which doesn't mean I would sell it or recommend it. I actually tell most customers to consider lower Cost options because there are so few real differentiators in mesh products. 1. Its far too overpriced ( retail of 4k per unit makes a 50 unit mesh a 240k project when compared to say, airmatrix which would run the operator Close to 50k. So is one product is 4x greater cost than the other, then There is something really screwy going on. -jb On 4/25/06 7:10 AM, John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cities don't want home brew, they generally want something that says Cisco on the side. Every city that we ahve recently talked to either has a Cisco Catalyst 6500 at teh core or has written a RFP to buy a switch that directly indicates a Catalyst 6500. Note, I am talking about cities with populationd of 25,000 and larger, I can't speak for the smaller towns. John -Original Message- From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:00 AM To: ''WISPA General List'' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes Why not just buy the cards, boards, antennas and make a few yourself? c -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:46 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes Then there are companies like airmatrix that charge less than 1k per node. The key with mesh is density, and many mesh startup's fail because they Underbuild their networks. - Jeff On 4/24/06 7:53 AM, John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know what equipment they are using, but Cisco AP1500's (mesh) are abnout $3700 each and Cisco recommends 18-20 per square mile. Thats $74,000 for the boxes plus antennas, mounts, POE and install. John -Original Message- From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:26 AM To: ''WISPA General List'' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes $173K per mile build out cost? Somebody just bought a new boat.. c -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
We do have dual radio mesh with 400mW and 100mW output power. You can find more information at http://www.defactowireless.com/Brochures/NewMesh.pdf I can have someone contact you offlist about the new products. David Peterson AirMatrix On 5/2/06 5:30 PM, John Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We kind of got sucked into this. We have been working with Cisco as a muni provider and were offered the Mesh training, which was good. A City IT manager found out about the mesh and wanted it-before it was even available-which wasn't so good. We could either install it and make some money or walk away and not make money. Based on the data sheets, I had high hopes, now that reality has set in, I am disappointed. I understand why Ciscos pricing is higher-they bought Airespace and need to get their investment back. That doesn't justify the fact the their gear is 3-4 x what the competitors is. We are dealing with cities, and most of them have a Catalyst 6500 in the back room. They tend to standardize on Cisco and are willing to pay the price. Dos airmatrix have a dual radio mesh box? I just looked and the mesh boxes seem to be single radio 2.4 only. John Jeffrey Thomas wrote: Yay branding. Actually my commpany is certified on cisco mesh. Which doesn't mean I would sell it or recommend it. I actually tell most customers to consider lower Cost options because there are so few real differentiators in mesh products. 1. Its far too overpriced ( retail of 4k per unit makes a 50 unit mesh a 240k project when compared to say, airmatrix which would run the operator Close to 50k. So is one product is 4x greater cost than the other, then There is something really screwy going on. -jb On 4/25/06 7:10 AM, John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cities don't want home brew, they generally want something that says Cisco on the side. Every city that we ahve recently talked to either has a Cisco Catalyst 6500 at teh core or has written a RFP to buy a switch that directly indicates a Catalyst 6500. Note, I am talking about cities with populationd of 25,000 and larger, I can't speak for the smaller towns. John -Original Message- From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:00 AM To: ''WISPA General List'' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes Why not just buy the cards, boards, antennas and make a few yourself? c -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:46 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes Then there are companies like airmatrix that charge less than 1k per node. The key with mesh is density, and many mesh startup's fail because they Underbuild their networks. - Jeff On 4/24/06 7:53 AM, John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know what equipment they are using, but Cisco AP1500's (mesh) are abnout $3700 each and Cisco recommends 18-20 per square mile. Thats $74,000 for the boxes plus antennas, mounts, POE and install. John -Original Message- From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:26 AM To: ''WISPA General List'' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes $173K per mile build out cost? Somebody just bought a new boat.. c -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Free Municipal Wi-Fi Service Boosts Economic Development in the City of St. Cloud, FL at http://www.digitalcityexpo.com/agenda.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] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Take that article/session with a grain of salt -- as it is being run by an organization that is supported by vendors trying to *sell* the concept of muni-wifi -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter R. Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 8:03 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes Free Municipal Wi-Fi Service Boosts Economic Development in the City of St. Cloud, FL at http://www.digitalcityexpo.com/agenda.htm -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
HP has a Wireless Engineering Group acting as an integrator for Muni Projects. Alvarion has worked with them on several projects. Brad -Original Message- From: Carl A Jeptha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 7:32 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes What is really funny is that they used Hewlett Packard. Why not Cisco, Alvarion, Tranzeo. These are some of the people who are suppose to know what they are doing. BTW I am a certified HP Computer and printer tech. but still I think they know what they are doing. KICKBACK You have a Good Day now, Carl A Jeptha http://www.airnet.ca office 905 349-2084 Emergency only Pager 905 377-6900 skype cajeptha Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: roflol The city is selling signal boosters (I read that as amps) to anyone that wants them for $170? Oh man, this deployment is gonna come CRASHING down. Hard. It's really too bad these people are too ignorant, stubborn or just plain stupid to call any of us in to help. sigh Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:07 AM Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
I'm biting my tongue on this topicI have been on enough of these projects, well over 50 in the last 12 months alone, and I have to say there are a pile of people that don't know what they're getting into and many will get hurt. For instance, I have a unnamed mesh vendor quoting 14 nodes per square mile for 100% coverage in a decent sized community in MA. They'll need at least 40ish... And please keep in mind that different parts of the Country where tree lines/foliage, noise floors, and topology are different create their own separate challenges. Throw in voice as some of the wireless network experts have advised and a whole new overlay of problems surface. There is a place for mesh just like other tools in your kit but covering whole counties or even trying to cover a whole City is quite a stretch IMHO. How did we get to this point of mesh first being considered a convenience or hotspot extension to what it has become today where it is seen as the 4th solution to the last mile or a cost effective roaming solution for public safety or city workers? I have seen designs in the NE US where 40 to 69 2.4 Ghz nodes per square mile are needed when a simple implement of 900 Mhz mobility with two base stations (redundant) per square mile can do the trick and save 90% of the cost of a mesh network. Use mesh in the parks, at the pool, in the restaurant district, or anywhere else people may want public access. And I'll add that opening up my notebook on a sunny day outside is pretty much a waste of battery power. I'm afraid Tempe AZ and St Cloud are just the start of some of the bad press we're going to see related to our wireless industry. But then again, I'm a show me guy so if one of these major networks actually works, has an ROI and doesn't become a boondoggle for tax payers, and serves the public well then I'll be impressed. Brad -Original Message- From: John J. Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 10:03 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes -Original Message- From: George [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 09:02 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes John J. Thomas wrote: inline... First off, the WISPs have to have the guts to talk to the city. Many simply refuse to do so, and are probably going to get the Muni WiFi shoved down their throats. I don't want to turn this into a battle of ideals. George, you are welcome to believe anything that you want. Here are some facts; 1. I work for Clare Computer Solutions and we are a Cisco Mesh certified network Integrator. 2. Cities have approached US to install their networks 3. These cities are not San Francisco sized, they are probably populations 100,000 and smaller. 4. They are spending the money to put in infrastructure for City workers, first. Many are looking at providing Internet access second. But how many local wisps have been chosen to date? I bet Joe laura in NO got passed over without much consideration to him. Joe is on this list, let him chime in here. Second, the cities are mostly going to use 2.4 GHz for access and 5.7-5.8 GHz for backhauls. WISP's will need to use 5.25-5.25 GHz and 900 MHz. Almost every wisp today is using 2.4 to reach the customer and 5 gig for infrastructure and high end customers. Are you saying that wisps have to move off the existing spectrum and replace their equipment? I am not saying that WISPS have to move off of 2.4. I am saying that if WISPs want to provide top quality service, then they may need to move off of 2.4 as it is getting crowded in lots of areas. In a word, service. The city will only be offering WiFi access-period. They won't be going out to peoples houses and doing installs, fixing virii, doing firewalls, etc. Here is a scenario, if a potential customer who is on the fence while deciding to go to broadband was to hear that a new muni free wifi system is going to come on line or he can buy now with his local wisp, which choice is the average consumer going to make? Most are going to try the muni first. Some are going to be unsatisfied and will look for a better deal. I'll give you an example. I had 384k SDSL to my house and it was costing me $152 per month. In order to save money, I dropped the SDSL in favor of a cable modem. The cable modem can do 6 meg down and about 384k up for $43 per month and has been verified by DSLreports. Even my wife thinks the SDSL was better, I just couldn't afford it anymore. If someone in Antioch CA were even offering wireless service at $42 per month, I would be there. There is a subset of people that want quality, and are willing to pay for it. Two questions come up-can you deliver and are there enough to keep you from starving? The support scenario happens long after the fact. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Please send your money as we are backordered for development. Will send product as soon as we can fill the order. LOL. Quoting Brian Rohrbacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I'll take 200. Rudolph Worrell wrote: I am reading all of these posts and I see one thing here. Marketing! There is little sense to this but a great deal of marketing being done for Mesh, 4.9, and Muni WiFi. I see out of town guys chime in all the time and express how well they can deploy and integrate networks. I am very curious about the actual implementations they have done that involved a large mountain ranges with customers spaced every 5 miles who are behind trees, or has some obstruction to any towers. Better yet a neighborhood with devices on the same frequencies that you cannot control. My guess is that their lab and specs of their devices looks great but the actual deployment is a different story. We all know that 2.4Ghz, 900Mhz, and 5.8Ghz, all have their limitations, and will perform perhaps 10% to 20% worst than advertised. Do these guys know that? As for the marketing bit, I have a 2.4Ghz wireless device that can communicate at 100 mph, at distances of 100mi from the tower using 60foot dishes, giving a throughput of 200Mbps. It sells for $50,000.00 per Clieint bridge and $600,000.00 per AP. Who wants to buy? Quoting Carl A Jeptha [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Well to one-up you, Our local Utility has been offered Wimax Radios to be used in a Mesh Network on a licensed Freq, so that they can read meters. What really gets me is that these people with a few carefully chosen words appear to know more than all of us put together. The gift of the GAB. You have a Good Day now, Carl A Jeptha http://www.airnet.ca office 905 349-2084 Emergency only Pager 905 377-6900 skype cajeptha Brad Larson wrote: I'm biting my tongue on this topicI have been on enough of these projects, well over 50 in the last 12 months alone, and I have to say there are a pile of people that don't know what they're getting into and many will get hurt. For instance, I have a unnamed mesh vendor quoting 14 nodes per square mile for 100% coverage in a decent sized community in MA. They'll need at least 40ish... And please keep in mind that different parts of the Country where tree lines/foliage, noise floors, and topology are different create their own separate challenges. Throw in voice as some of the wireless network experts have advised and a whole new overlay of problems surface. There is a place for mesh just like other tools in your kit but covering whole counties or even trying to cover a whole City is quite a stretch IMHO. How did we get to this point of mesh first being considered a convenience or hotspot extension to what it has become today where it is seen as the 4th solution to the last mile or a cost effective roaming solution for public safety or city workers? I have seen designs in the NE US where 40 to 69 2.4 Ghz nodes per square mile are needed when a simple implement of 900 Mhz mobility with two base stations (redundant) per square mile can do the trick and save 90% of the cost of a mesh network. Use mesh in the parks, at the pool, in the restaurant district, or anywhere else people may want public access. And I'll add that opening up my notebook on a sunny day outside is pretty much a waste of battery power. I'm afraid Tempe AZ and St Cloud are just the start of some of the bad press we're going to see related to our wireless industry. But then again, I'm a show me guy so if one of these major networks actually works, has an ROI and doesn't become a boondoggle for tax payers, and serves the public well then I'll be impressed. Brad -Original Message- From: John J. Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 10:03 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes -Original Message- From: George [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 09:02 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes John J. Thomas wrote: inline... First off, the WISPs have to have the guts to talk to the city. Many simply refuse to do so, and are probably going to get the Muni WiFi shoved down their throats. I don't want to turn this into a battle of ideals. George, you are welcome to believe anything that you want. Here are some facts; 1. I work for Clare Computer Solutions and we are a Cisco Mesh certified network Integrator. 2. Cities have approached US to install their networks 3. These cities are not San Francisco sized, they are probably
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Which will be a darn shame, as San Francisco is a near perfect city for a Wide Scale PtMP cell type engineered WISP network, based on the layout of the city, and where the high spots are. But I'm sure they'll ruin it with the high power Omni on every corner design. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:36 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes I'll go ahead and predict that San Francisco will be a disaster. -Matt Jack Unger wrote: Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni problems that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be done correctly and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to play a positive role in proper network design and operation however most muni networks are incorrectly designed by people with limited wireless experience (yes, that even includes some mesh network vendors) which will lead to network failure, waste of taxpayer money, and possible loss of jobs on the part of the city IT folks (not to mention the elected officials) who backed the networks without first learning about how wireless technology really works. jack George wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Travis Johnson wrote: You guys are all missing the point. If they contract with the local WISP, they don't get to create new jobs for the muni... instead, they are just helping a local business grow with local tax money. Welcome to politics in the wireless arena. :( Travis Microserv Exactly Travis, it's a socialist dream. I wasn't aware of this until last week when I read an article about Salem Oregon's Open.org. The City has been running open.org which is a full facilities based ISP with dial up, web hosting, DSL and wifi hot spots. They charge 12.00 per month for dial up. Anybody can sell 12.00 dial up, nothing special here. I'm not sure about the other businesspeople on this list, but I have a hard time accepting that our government ought to be in *any* business. Never mind competing against the private sector. Salem Oregon is not a small town with nobody servicing it, it's the State Capital and either the 2nd or 3rd largest city in the state. I don't buy that they provided these services because others wouldn't or couldn't, I believe it's just what it is, state run industry. I thought that we went to war in Korea, Vietnam, Central America and almost with Russia to end communism and socialism and to further our capitalistic system. So why should any government local or state decide to take over an industry and compete against business after what this country has stood for the entire 20th century? This is where I find Muni anything to be appalling. You hit it square on the head, it's politics and I don't believe any of us businesspeople want to include politics as part of our business. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Here in Atlanta you can't use 2.4 unless it is indoors. In fact, you have to get out 90+ miles before the noise floor drops off enough to even think about it. -Matt Need I say more. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Chris cooper wrote: The SR9 cards might be interesting for this app... Probably not much help Chris. As you and every wisp who has deployed more than a few AP's in urban density knows, there is not enough spectrum available in all the unlicensed bands combined to service the vast population of any city of size. Wisps are usually number 3 behind DSL and cable n most markets. Reason we will always be behind is we can not put as many people on our networks without fubaring the spectrum. So this is the issue, not enough spectrum, we need more spectrum and we need to be looking at wireless-fiber combo. Seeing we don't have enough spectrum, it should not go wasted, regardless of the frequency, by hanging government operated omni's on every third light pole. It's a ridiculous thought. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
What is really funny is that they used Hewlett Packard. Why not Cisco, Alvarion, Tranzeo. These are some of the people who are suppose to know what they are doing. BTW I am a certified HP Computer and printer tech. but still I think they know what they are doing. KICKBACK You have a Good Day now, Carl A Jeptha http://www.airnet.ca office 905 349-2084 Emergency only Pager 905 377-6900 skype cajeptha Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: roflol The city is selling signal boosters (I read that as amps) to anyone that wants them for $170? Oh man, this deployment is gonna come CRASHING down. Hard. It's really too bad these people are too ignorant, stubborn or just plain stupid to call any of us in to help. sigh Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:07 AM Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
3500 registered users using a network that costs $400K per year to maintain!!! That's $114 per subscriber! Why not just pay to give them DSL! LOL -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
OK. You mentioned some convenient factors regarding Tropos. But what software benefits does it have over other MESH that will allow it to work better than other mesh? Thats what really matters, and I'm not sure that they have a superior software platform. Refering to intelligent routing and such. How does it handle when a path goes bad? Any comment on that? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 1:27 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes A Tropos unit has a 1W transmitter, is capable of being powered via PoE or via AC delivered through standard outlets as well as a variety of photo-cell taps including high-voltage ones. When powered with AC, it is capable of providing PoE power out of its Ethernet ports supporting equipment from Motorola and Trango even though neither using standard PoE. It mounts like a dream, includes level bubbles for perfect orientation, and units can be slid into and out of place with only a single screw enabling nodes to be changed in less than 5 minutes. Quite simply, a Tropos unit is beautifully engineered. Where can I find the parts to make the same thing in a single package? -Matt chris cooper wrote: Why not just buy the cards, boards, antennas and make a few yourself? c -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:46 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes Then there are companies like airmatrix that charge less than 1k per node. The key with mesh is density, and many mesh startup's fail because they Underbuild their networks. - Jeff On 4/24/06 7:53 AM, John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know what equipment they are using, but Cisco AP1500's (mesh) are abnout $3700 each and Cisco recommends 18-20 per square mile. Thats $74,000 for the boxes plus antennas, mounts, POE and install. John -Original Message- From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:26 AM To: ''WISPA General List'' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes $173K per mile build out cost? Somebody just bought a new boat.. c -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Bob Moldashel wrote: 3500 registered users using a network that costs $400K per year to maintain!!! That's $114 per subscriber! Why not just pay to give them DSL! LOL You laugh, but there are ISPs with less than 50 broadband customers. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
That's 114 a year, it's 9.50 a sub on a monthly rate. DSJ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter R. Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 8:57 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes Bob Moldashel wrote: 3500 registered users using a network that costs $400K per year to maintain!!! That's $114 per subscriber! Why not just pay to give them DSL! LOL You laugh, but there are ISPs with less than 50 broadband customers. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
-Original Message- From: George [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 09:02 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes John J. Thomas wrote: inline... First off, the WISPs have to have the guts to talk to the city. Many simply refuse to do so, and are probably going to get the Muni WiFi shoved down their throats. I don't want to turn this into a battle of ideals. George, you are welcome to believe anything that you want. Here are some facts; 1. I work for Clare Computer Solutions and we are a Cisco Mesh certified network Integrator. 2. Cities have approached US to install their networks 3. These cities are not San Francisco sized, they are probably populations 100,000 and smaller. 4. They are spending the money to put in infrastructure for City workers, first. Many are looking at providing Internet access second. But how many local wisps have been chosen to date? I bet Joe laura in NO got passed over without much consideration to him. Joe is on this list, let him chime in here. Second, the cities are mostly going to use 2.4 GHz for access and 5.7-5.8 GHz for backhauls. WISP's will need to use 5.25-5.25 GHz and 900 MHz. Almost every wisp today is using 2.4 to reach the customer and 5 gig for infrastructure and high end customers. Are you saying that wisps have to move off the existing spectrum and replace their equipment? I am not saying that WISPS have to move off of 2.4. I am saying that if WISPs want to provide top quality service, then they may need to move off of 2.4 as it is getting crowded in lots of areas. In a word, service. The city will only be offering WiFi access-period. They won't be going out to peoples houses and doing installs, fixing virii, doing firewalls, etc. Here is a scenario, if a potential customer who is on the fence while deciding to go to broadband was to hear that a new muni free wifi system is going to come on line or he can buy now with his local wisp, which choice is the average consumer going to make? Most are going to try the muni first. Some are going to be unsatisfied and will look for a better deal. I'll give you an example. I had 384k SDSL to my house and it was costing me $152 per month. In order to save money, I dropped the SDSL in favor of a cable modem. The cable modem can do 6 meg down and about 384k up for $43 per month and has been verified by DSLreports. Even my wife thinks the SDSL was better, I just couldn't afford it anymore. If someone in Antioch CA were even offering wireless service at $42 per month, I would be there. There is a subset of people that want quality, and are willing to pay for it. Two questions come up-can you deliver and are there enough to keep you from starving? The support scenario happens long after the fact. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Cities don't want home brew, they generally want something that says Cisco on the side. Every city that we ahve recently talked to either has a Cisco Catalyst 6500 at teh core or has written a RFP to buy a switch that directly indicates a Catalyst 6500. Note, I am talking about cities with populationd of 25,000 and larger, I can't speak for the smaller towns. John -Original Message- From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:00 AM To: ''WISPA General List'' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes Why not just buy the cards, boards, antennas and make a few yourself? c -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:46 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes Then there are companies like airmatrix that charge less than 1k per node. The key with mesh is density, and many mesh startup's fail because they Underbuild their networks. - Jeff On 4/24/06 7:53 AM, John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know what equipment they are using, but Cisco AP1500's (mesh) are abnout $3700 each and Cisco recommends 18-20 per square mile. Thats $74,000 for the boxes plus antennas, mounts, POE and install. John -Original Message- From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:26 AM To: ''WISPA General List'' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes $173K per mile build out cost? Somebody just bought a new boat.. c -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
So, in Atlanta, the trees are so dense that a 5 GHz radio putting out 26 dBm into a 7.5 dB omni can't go 2500 feet? John -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:53 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes Jack Unger wrote: A multi-band mesh node does the backhaul on 5 GHz (sometimes with more than one 5 GHz radio). This reduces (but certainly doesn't eliminate) the 2.4 GHz self-interference and other-network-interference level. You can't use 5 Ghz to go through trees here in Atlanta, so that won't help you. Multi-band mesh nodes simple don't work here. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Bob, It's $9.50 per month per user, after only 50 days of evangelizing. Not even the SBCs of the world are selling it for that. And as soon as grandma Jones and Bob down the street figure out what's going on, they'll sign up, too. So it will only be $4.16/mo. when they hit the 8,000 mark. Assume 2.77 persons per household (using Kissimmee census data) and you have 10,108 households plus a guestimate of 2000 businesses (based on Kissimees 3900 business count). And maybe they'll get 75% penetration (remember, the service is 'free'). Businesses would be dumb not to use it at least as a backup connection. Some mom and pop shops might be able to use it as the primary. Now, consider that you're no longer dealing with households, but individuals. I estimate about 65% are between ages 18 and 65. Let's play dumb and say that nobody under 18 or older than 65 could make use of it. That's 18,200 users. Plus, I think tourism is one of St. Clouds biggest industries. Add them in as potential users. Plus, it's a bonus to business travelers. If 75% of them subscribe, you have 15,000 accounts. That $4.16 drops to about $2. And, the access is mobile, albeit spotty at this point. So, you don't pay T-mobile for their hotspot, Sprint for EV-DO, and Bellsouth for DSL. The city is the 1st in the country to offer free wi-fi citywide. #1, 'forefront', 'technologically friendly', 'advanced': these are coveted adjectives. In what other way can a city be number one anymore? That's a qualification that's hard to buy for $2.4m, even if it's not a perfect system. Brian Whigham Yonder Networks 800-770-3421 706-534-1515 Census Data for Kissimmee: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12/1236950.html Bob Moldashel wrote: 3500 registered users using a network that costs $400K per year to maintain!!! That's $114 per subscriber! Why not just pay to give them DSL! LOL -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
, because of it. Internet down then becomes the pathetic excuse like the dog ate it. User is screwed because an ISP offering QOS won't come deploy because to much market share lost to competition from FREE wifi. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 5:13 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes Travis Johnson wrote: You guys are all missing the point. If they contract with the local WISP, they don't get to create new jobs for the muni... instead, they are just helping a local business grow with local tax money. Welcome to politics in the wireless arena. :( Travis Microserv Exactly Travis, it's a socialist dream. I wasn't aware of this until last week when I read an article about Salem Oregon's Open.org. The City has been running open.org which is a full facilities based ISP with dial up, web hosting, DSL and wifi hot spots. They charge 12.00 per month for dial up. Anybody can sell 12.00 dial up, nothing special here. I'm not sure about the other businesspeople on this list, but I have a hard time accepting that our government ought to be in *any* business. Never mind competing against the private sector. Salem Oregon is not a small town with nobody servicing it, it's the State Capital and either the 2nd or 3rd largest city in the state. I don't buy that they provided these services because others wouldn't or couldn't, I believe it's just what it is, state run industry. I thought that we went to war in Korea, Vietnam, Central America and almost with Russia to end communism and socialism and to further our capitalistic system. So why should any government local or state decide to take over an industry and compete against business after what this country has stood for the entire 20th century? This is where I find Muni anything to be appalling. You hit it square on the head, it's politics and I don't believe any of us businesspeople want to include politics as part of our business. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
George, Few people care about socialistic programs so long as their pockets are affected in a positive way. Our government is not purely capitalistic, and was never designed to be. Plus, access has become a commodity and a utility. It's no surprise to me that governments try to regulate and sell it as such. My town sells me water and sewer service. They've privatized trash pickup, which is a disaster, in my opinion. When viewing Internet access as a utility, it makes sense, in some cases, to have a government-sponsored option. Munis may reach those on the other side of the digital divide. It may increase outside investors interest in local investment. Some providers are simply not going to reach out to small communities and rural areas. And, more often, the only option will be from one ILEC. Your example in Salem sounds like a good argument against muni ISP systems. But, each case will be different. Fortunately, our government is made up of elected officials. We can vote them out as a community. Unfortunately, they may permanantly damage independant ISPs before the community has a chance to voice dissenting opinions. I think Matt Larsen has the idea. We won't stop these efforts in many cases, no matter how hard we try. But, we might be able to ride the tide if we try to cooperate and provide assistance. Brian Whigham Yonder Networks 800-770-3421 706-534-1515 George wrote: Travis Johnson wrote: You guys are all missing the point. If they contract with the local WISP, they don't get to create new jobs for the muni... instead, they are just helping a local business grow with local tax money. Welcome to politics in the wireless arena. :( Travis Microserv Exactly Travis, it's a socialist dream. I wasn't aware of this until last week when I read an article about Salem Oregon's Open.org. The City has been running open.org which is a full facilities based ISP with dial up, web hosting, DSL and wifi hot spots. They charge 12.00 per month for dial up. Anybody can sell 12.00 dial up, nothing special here. I'm not sure about the other businesspeople on this list, but I have a hard time accepting that our government ought to be in *any* business. Never mind competing against the private sector. Salem Oregon is not a small town with nobody servicing it, it's the State Capital and either the 2nd or 3rd largest city in the state. I don't buy that they provided these services because others wouldn't or couldn't, I believe it's just what it is, state run industry. I thought that we went to war in Korea, Vietnam, Central America and almost with Russia to end communism and socialism and to further our capitalistic system. So why should any government local or state decide to take over an industry and compete against business after what this country has stood for the entire 20th century? This is where I find Muni anything to be appalling. You hit it square on the head, it's politics and I don't believe any of us businesspeople want to include politics as part of our business. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
The real problem is that it won't be $400k. It'll be at least twice that. It always is. And, I didn't see anywhere that that included upstream connectivity? Here's where this stuff gets sticky. Out here we have a PUD that's put fiber to the home in. They told people that it cost roughly $3,000 per gateway box on the side of the house. But they really spent $15,000 once it was all installed!!! They flat out didn't tell the whole story to the tax payers OR the press. Deception through omission? I think so. I spend nearly 25% of their numbers to take care of a network with less than 1/10th the customer base! I don't, for a second, believe the $400,000 per year in expenses number. I guess time will tell 'eh? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Brian Whigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 8:34 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes Bob, It's $9.50 per month per user, after only 50 days of evangelizing. Not even the SBCs of the world are selling it for that. And as soon as grandma Jones and Bob down the street figure out what's going on, they'll sign up, too. So it will only be $4.16/mo. when they hit the 8,000 mark. Assume 2.77 persons per household (using Kissimmee census data) and you have 10,108 households plus a guestimate of 2000 businesses (based on Kissimees 3900 business count). And maybe they'll get 75% penetration (remember, the service is 'free'). Businesses would be dumb not to use it at least as a backup connection. Some mom and pop shops might be able to use it as the primary. Now, consider that you're no longer dealing with households, but individuals. I estimate about 65% are between ages 18 and 65. Let's play dumb and say that nobody under 18 or older than 65 could make use of it. That's 18,200 users. Plus, I think tourism is one of St. Clouds biggest industries. Add them in as potential users. Plus, it's a bonus to business travelers. If 75% of them subscribe, you have 15,000 accounts. That $4.16 drops to about $2. And, the access is mobile, albeit spotty at this point. So, you don't pay T-mobile for their hotspot, Sprint for EV-DO, and Bellsouth for DSL. The city is the 1st in the country to offer free wi-fi citywide. #1, 'forefront', 'technologically friendly', 'advanced': these are coveted adjectives. In what other way can a city be number one anymore? That's a qualification that's hard to buy for $2.4m, even if it's not a perfect system. Brian Whigham Yonder Networks 800-770-3421 706-534-1515 Census Data for Kissimmee: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12/1236950.html Bob Moldashel wrote: 3500 registered users using a network that costs $400K per year to maintain!!! That's $114 per subscriber! Why not just pay to give them DSL! LOL -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
$173K per mile build out cost? Somebody just bought a new boat.. c -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
I'll go ahead and predict that San Francisco will be a disaster. -Matt Jack Unger wrote: Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni problems that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be done correctly and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to play a positive role in proper network design and operation however most muni networks are incorrectly designed by people with limited wireless experience (yes, that even includes some mesh network vendors) which will lead to network failure, waste of taxpayer money, and possible loss of jobs on the part of the city IT folks (not to mention the elected officials) who backed the networks without first learning about how wireless technology really works. jack George wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
I am doubting that wisps can actually accomadate the muni in most situations, unless they are closely involved with the design of the network, Talking spectrum use here. As for going along with free muni wifi, How is a wisp going to operate if a muni is offering for free or at cut rate pricing? And how are they going to expand if the spectrum is used up all over the place with unlicensed omni's on every corner. George Jack Unger wrote: Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni problems that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be done correctly and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to play a positive role in proper network design and operation however most muni networks are incorrectly designed by people with limited wireless experience (yes, that even includes some mesh network vendors) which will lead to network failure, waste of taxpayer money, and possible loss of jobs on the part of the city IT folks (not to mention the elected officials) who backed the networks without first learning about how wireless technology really works. jack George wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
I don't know what equipment they are using, but Cisco AP1500's (mesh) are abnout $3700 each and Cisco recommends 18-20 per square mile. Thats $74,000 for the boxes plus antennas, mounts, POE and install. John -Original Message- From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:26 AM To: ''WISPA General List'' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes $173K per mile build out cost? Somebody just bought a new boat.. c -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Jack, I hate to say it but didn't we say I told you so There is just not enough spectrum to design networks like this to work with anything but dedicated CPE devices with outdoor antennas. Simply flooding an area with more signal to let laptops inside a house work will not solve the problem. It just creates more noise on already maxed out spectrum. I really wish the vendors and project stalwarts would admit this is a problem with these networks and not gloss it over. Self interference and outside interference are always going to be huge problems in these muni-networks. Everyone trying to build on the fact that off the shelf consumer devices can access this network will be the downfall. Wi-fi was never designed for a massive outdoor deployment such as this and when you try to make up for the fact that you do not have control over the CPE when it comes to proper RF planning you are doomed to failure. Just my 2 cents. Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com http://www.wirelessmapping.com -Original Message- From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:29 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni problems that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be done correctly and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to play a positive role in proper network design and operation however most muni networks are incorrectly designed by people with limited wireless experience (yes, that even includes some mesh network vendors) which will lead to network failure, waste of taxpayer money, and possible loss of jobs on the part of the city IT folks (not to mention the elected officials) who backed the networks without first learning about how wireless technology really works. jack George wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- 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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Same thing is happening here in New Orleans. I did talk to the city before it was designed but when I told them that it would be impossible for every houshold to pop open a laptop in their desired room the door was slammed shut. They did not want to hear this. I built a small mesh out downtown just for kicks a couple of years ago. Took my time and designed it the best it could be. These guys that do not know the technology get this vision to do whats impossible. Superior Wireless New Orleans,La. www.superior1.com - Original Message - From: Brian Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:10 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes Jack, I hate to say it but didn't we say I told you so There is just not enough spectrum to design networks like this to work with anything but dedicated CPE devices with outdoor antennas. Simply flooding an area with more signal to let laptops inside a house work will not solve the problem. It just creates more noise on already maxed out spectrum. I really wish the vendors and project stalwarts would admit this is a problem with these networks and not gloss it over. Self interference and outside interference are always going to be huge problems in these muni-networks. Everyone trying to build on the fact that off the shelf consumer devices can access this network will be the downfall. Wi-fi was never designed for a massive outdoor deployment such as this and when you try to make up for the fact that you do not have control over the CPE when it comes to proper RF planning you are doomed to failure. Just my 2 cents. Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com http://www.wirelessmapping.com -Original Message- From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:29 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni problems that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be done correctly and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to play a positive role in proper network design and operation however most muni networks are incorrectly designed by people with limited wireless experience (yes, that even includes some mesh network vendors) which will lead to network failure, waste of taxpayer money, and possible loss of jobs on the part of the city IT folks (not to mention the elected officials) who backed the networks without first learning about how wireless technology really works. jack George wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- 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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
inline... -Original Message- From: George [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:40 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes I am doubting that wisps can actually accomadate the muni in most situations, unless they are closely involved with the design of the network, Talking spectrum use here. First off, the WISPs have to have the guts to talk to the city. Many simply refuse to do so, and are probably going to get the Muni WiFi shoved down their throats. Second, the cities are mostly going to use 2.4 GHz for access and 5.7-5.8 GHz for backhauls. WISP's will need to use 5.25-5.25 GHz and 900 MHz. As for going along with free muni wifi, How is a wisp going to operate if a muni is offering for free or at cut rate pricing? In a word, service. The city will only be offering WiFi access-period. They won't be going out to peoples houses and doing installs, fixing virii, doing firewalls, etc. And how are they going to expand if the spectrum is used up all over the place with unlicensed omni's on every corner. George Jack Unger wrote: Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni problems that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be done correctly and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to play a positive role in proper network design and operation however most muni networks are incorrectly designed by people with limited wireless experience (yes, that even includes some mesh network vendors) which will lead to network failure, waste of taxpayer money, and possible loss of jobs on the part of the city IT folks (not to mention the elected officials) who backed the networks without first learning about how wireless technology really works. jack George wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
roflol The city is selling signal boosters (I read that as amps) to anyone that wants them for $170? Oh man, this deployment is gonna come CRASHING down. Hard. It's really too bad these people are too ignorant, stubborn or just plain stupid to call any of us in to help. sigh Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:07 AM Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
John J. Thomas wrote: inline... First off, the WISPs have to have the guts to talk to the city. Many simply refuse to do so, and are probably going to get the Muni WiFi shoved down their throats. I don't want to turn this into a battle of ideals. But how many local wisps have been chosen to date? I bet Joe laura in NO got passed over without much consideration to him. Joe is on this list, let him chime in here. Second, the cities are mostly going to use 2.4 GHz for access and 5.7-5.8 GHz for backhauls. WISP's will need to use 5.25-5.25 GHz and 900 MHz. Almost every wisp today is using 2.4 to reach the customer and 5 gig for infrastructure and high end customers. Are you saying that wisps have to move off the existing spectrum and replace their equipment? In a word, service. The city will only be offering WiFi access-period. They won't be going out to peoples houses and doing installs, fixing virii, doing firewalls, etc. Here is a scenario, if a potential customer who is on the fence while deciding to go to broadband was to hear that a new muni free wifi system is going to come on line or he can buy now with his local wisp, which choice is the average consumer going to make? The support scenario happens long after the fact. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
That one's easy. They have a $400,000 per year budget. The city should contract with the WISP for that. Sheesh, 15 square miles. I could do that with my eyes closed! Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:40 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes I am doubting that wisps can actually accomadate the muni in most situations, unless they are closely involved with the design of the network, Talking spectrum use here. As for going along with free muni wifi, How is a wisp going to operate if a muni is offering for free or at cut rate pricing? And how are they going to expand if the spectrum is used up all over the place with unlicensed omni's on every corner. George Jack Unger wrote: Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni problems that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be done correctly and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to play a positive role in proper network design and operation however most muni networks are incorrectly designed by people with limited wireless experience (yes, that even includes some mesh network vendors) which will lead to network failure, waste of taxpayer money, and possible loss of jobs on the part of the city IT folks (not to mention the elected officials) who backed the networks without first learning about how wireless technology really works. jack George wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
No, they are selling higher powered CPE devices that act as a bridge connecting to the muni network and then act as a local AP to help lower powered laptops effectively use the service. -Matt Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: roflol The city is selling signal boosters (I read that as amps) to anyone that wants them for $170? Oh man, this deployment is gonna come CRASHING down. Hard. It's really too bad these people are too ignorant, stubborn or just plain stupid to call any of us in to help. sigh Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:07 AM Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
You guys are all missing the point. If they contract with the local WISP, they don't get to create new jobs for the muni... instead, they are just helping a local business grow with local tax money. Welcome to politics in the wireless arena. :( Travis Microserv Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: That one's easy. They have a $400,000 per year budget. The city should contract with the WISP for that. Sheesh, 15 square miles. I could do that with my eyes closed! Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:40 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes I am doubting that wisps can actually accomadate the muni in most situations, unless they are closely involved with the design of the network, Talking spectrum use here. As for going along with free muni wifi, How is a wisp going to operate if a muni is offering for free or at cut rate pricing? And how are they going to expand if the spectrum is used up all over the place with unlicensed omni's on every corner. George Jack Unger wrote: Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni problems that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be done correctly and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to play a positive role in proper network design and operation however most muni networks are incorrectly designed by people with limited wireless experience (yes, that even includes some mesh network vendors) which will lead to network failure, waste of taxpayer money, and possible loss of jobs on the part of the city IT folks (not to mention the elected officials) who backed the networks without first learning about how wireless technology really works. jack George wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Why not just buy the cards, boards, antennas and make a few yourself? c -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:46 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes Then there are companies like airmatrix that charge less than 1k per node. The key with mesh is density, and many mesh startup's fail because they Underbuild their networks. - Jeff On 4/24/06 7:53 AM, John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know what equipment they are using, but Cisco AP1500's (mesh) are abnout $3700 each and Cisco recommends 18-20 per square mile. Thats $74,000 for the boxes plus antennas, mounts, POE and install. John -Original Message- From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:26 AM To: ''WISPA General List'' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes $173K per mile build out cost? Somebody just bought a new boat.. c -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
In recent post I explained that here in Atlanta you can only use a single 2.4 channel because of the noise floor. How is a multi-band mesh node going to work? Maybe there is a reason the big muni projects keep selecting Tropos. -Matt Jack Unger wrote: Dawn, Thanks for posting the St. Cloud PepLink and HP info. Using standard CPE (PePLink)is very good but using Tropos nodes is very, very bad. Very bad because they only have one single 2.4 GHz radio so after 2 or 3 hops, all the throughput capability is gone not to mention that the interference level from having all the access and backhaul packets colliding on 2.4 GHz (along with any WISP and other 2.4 GHz network packets) will slow all the networks (muni and WISP) down further. I hate to finger anyone but Tropos' stubborn refusal or inability (anyone at Tropos listening???) to produce a 2-band mesh node is going to doom them to failure along with any big city that deploys their nodes without an extremely efficient point-to-multipoint backbone design on 5 GHz. jack Dawn DiPietro wrote: http://www.peplink.com/060306.php Date: March 7, 2006* PePLink announces as the official Citywide Wireless CPE provider for City of St. Cloud in Florida * *Hong Kong, Mar 7, 2006 - *PePLink, a leader in citywide WiFi wireless broadband devices today announced the City of St. Cloud, FL, a suburb of Orlando, has chosen PePLink to be the official wireless CPE provider for the Cyber Spot, the City's 100% free citywide high-speed wireless Internet service. With a reliable, secure, ease of use wireless CPE - PePLink Surf, every citizen or business in the city of St. Cloud can connect to the citywide wireless network at a high speed. The CPE greatly enhances the throughput and reliability of both up and down link compared with a wireless-enabled computer desktop or notebook computer. The simple true plug and play nature of the PePLink Surf helps the citizens in St. Cloud to bring the wireless signal indoors with ease. At the same time, the PePLink Surf units can be remotely managed, monitored and provisioned by PePLink's carrier-grade management and reporting solution, PCMS (or PePLink Centralized Management System). This can ensure a scalable and rapid rollout of the wireless systems within a short period of time. This eliminates an onsite installation charge. Being chosen by City of St. Cloud has further endorsed our capability to offer reliable wireless solutions to municipal wireless networks built with mesh network technology, said Alex Chan, Managing Director of PePLink. PePLink Surf together with PCMS is the complete solution specifically designed for today's citywide wireless networks. PePLink Surf series consists of Surf 200BG and Surf 400BG. For more information on PePLink Surf series, please visit http://www.peplink.com http://www.peplink.com/. Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: roflol The city is selling signal boosters (I read that as amps) to anyone that wants them for $170? Oh man, this deployment is gonna come CRASHING down. Hard. It's really too bad these people are too ignorant, stubborn or just plain stupid to call any of us in to help. sigh Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:07 AM Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ --- --- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Amen brother Matt! Excellent points and most of the reality of the muni systems. Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com http://www.wirelessmapping.com -Original Message- From: Matt Larsen - Lists [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:17 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes George, Unfortunately, every time that the public hears about problems with a wifi network (muni or otherwise) it is going to reflect badly on all of us. After reading the article, it is pretty clear that the writer picked out one sorehead and blew his problems up into something big. The Bells want the Muni-Broadband efforts to fail badly, and they have the added side benefit of making WISPs look bad in the process. After having an opportunity to visit with Esme Vos of muniwireless.org and several other community wireless advocates at the Freedom to Connect conference, it is pretty clear that we should be embracing muniwireless. They need us badly - specifically our real-world experience and in the field capability. Many of the munis are being fed a long line of bs from vendors and stories like this one out of St. Cloud are going to be trumpeted as examples of muniwireless failure - when the real failure is that govt officials and the citizens were given unrealistic expectations. Here are some of my responses to the common criticisms of muniwireless 1) FREE service in my city is going to put me out of business Response: Not true. Most of the FREE services are very low speed connections (sub 256K) or are filled with non-bypassable advertising. Plus, there is no quality of service guarantee for a free service and nonexistent tech support.There is plenty of opportunity to offer a higher quality service that people are willing to pay for. Don't forget that most of the people who go for the FREE service are folks that wouldn't pay for service anyway. If they become users and want a better level of service, there is a good chance that they will become paying customers at some point in the future. 2) Government money should not be used to compete with private industry Response: In most applications, muniwireless efforts are being explored by the governmental entity to SAVE money. If a muni can put in a network for a cost of $100,000, but will save $60,000/year through reduced telephone/cellphone/leased line expenses, then that is a big WIN/WIN situation for everyone involved except the telcos. Local government spending generates a huge amount of revenue for the phone companies. Doesn't it make more sense for the city to put in its own infrastructure and manage it locally than to spend it with telcos/cellcos? Savings from telecom revenue are only one of the many ways that muni networks can generate substantial savings. Decreased labor, increased operational efficiency and many other benefits come from muni networks. 3) Municipal wireless networks duplicate efforts made my local WISPs Response: After talking to a lot of muniwireless people, the issue is that munis would PREFER to work with a local WISP or ISP operator to get their network going, but WISPs do such a poor job of promoting themselves that most munis have no idea that there is someone operating in their area. Introduce yourself to the IT person in every town where you provide service - do not give them an excuse for ignorance. We are generally more local than any other company that they will deal with, and we have tons of practical experience and the ability to demo our capabilities. We should be exploiting these advantages to the highest possible degree. It will require you to become a participant in your local government, but that is the best way to get what you want. Every WISPA member should be watching their area diligently for muniwireless opportunities in their area, and working hard to get in on the ground floor. I have done cooperative projects in ten towns in my service area and all have been WIN/WIN for me and for the cities. At last check, these cites combined are saving $4000 a month over what they were paying the telcos for the same or inferior level of service. My goal is to be taking $30,000/month out of the pockets of the local telcos (Qwest and Embarq) within the next two years. Just imagine what kind of an impact muni networks would have on the telcos if 1 communities pulled an average of $1000 a month out of telcos and put it into local infrastructure? That is $1 million a month out of telco coffers and into local economies. What if the average savings was $5000 a month and 2 communities developed their own networks? Even the telcos will notice $10 million a month in declining revenues. More importantly, the influx into the local economy of that money (instead of having it sucked out by the telco vampire) will make a big difference at the local level. WISPs should be taking a proactive, positive stance toward
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Matt, Tropos has done a very good job when it comes to powering their node from a wide variety of sources. Unfortunately their fatal flaw is to insistence on clinging to their single-radio design. This means their nodes will always be throughput-limited, latency-limited, self-interference limited, and 2.4 GHz spectrum polluters. Any power and rf-savvy WISP could design an equally power-versatile mesh node but make it multi-band. jack Matt Liotta wrote: A Tropos unit has a 1W transmitter, is capable of being powered via PoE or via AC delivered through standard outlets as well as a variety of photo-cell taps including high-voltage ones. When powered with AC, it is capable of providing PoE power out of its Ethernet ports supporting equipment from Motorola and Trango even though neither using standard PoE. It mounts like a dream, includes level bubbles for perfect orientation, and units can be slid into and out of place with only a single screw enabling nodes to be changed in less than 5 minutes. Quite simply, a Tropos unit is beautifully engineered. Where can I find the parts to make the same thing in a single package? -Matt chris cooper wrote: Why not just buy the cards, boards, antennas and make a few yourself? c -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:46 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes Then there are companies like airmatrix that charge less than 1k per node. The key with mesh is density, and many mesh startup's fail because they Underbuild their networks. - Jeff On 4/24/06 7:53 AM, John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know what equipment they are using, but Cisco AP1500's (mesh) are abnout $3700 each and Cisco recommends 18-20 per square mile. Thats $74,000 for the boxes plus antennas, mounts, POE and install. John -Original Message- From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:26 AM To: ''WISPA General List'' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes $173K per mile build out cost? Somebody just bought a new boat.. c -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- 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] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
HP likes to design these Tropos networks by never having more than 2 hops before it gets put on some sort of backhaul. This in theory works well but in reality, you still run out of 2.4 GHz channels to place the access nodes on. Remember each radio/mesh unit is at the same height as every other one thus firing their signal directly in to the antenna of all neighboring nodes. The users may not see the noise but node to node traffic certainly hears it. When the mesh radio is deaf because of noise, the network just plain fails to work. End of story. Mesh will simply not work on a loaded residential user based system without a lot more spectrum. People are trying to fight the laws of physics. Ask any ham radio guy about this. When they originally built packet radio networks back in the early 90's, they found you needed separate channels to make it work (and that was only 1200 baud). San Francisco, Philly and any other muni network are going to fail based on this problem. The idea and premise of a muni network is solid based on the points Matt Larsen brought up but as Jack and others have stated, they have been sold on all of the positive benefits but never get told the limitations. The typical IT mentality is that they can throw more money at the problem to increase capacity. This is simply not true based on the limited number of useable channels. Sad thing is there will be a lot of taxpayer money wasted to prove this point. Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com http://www.wirelessmapping.com -Original Message- From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 1:22 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes Dawn, Thanks for posting the St. Cloud PepLink and HP info. Using standard CPE (PePLink)is very good but using Tropos nodes is very, very bad. Very bad because they only have one single 2.4 GHz radio so after 2 or 3 hops, all the throughput capability is gone not to mention that the interference level from having all the access and backhaul packets colliding on 2.4 GHz (along with any WISP and other 2.4 GHz network packets) will slow all the networks (muni and WISP) down further. I hate to finger anyone but Tropos' stubborn refusal or inability (anyone at Tropos listening???) to produce a 2-band mesh node is going to doom them to failure along with any big city that deploys their nodes without an extremely efficient point-to-multipoint backbone design on 5 GHz. jack Dawn DiPietro wrote: http://www.peplink.com/060306.php Date: March 7, 2006* PePLink announces as the official Citywide Wireless CPE provider for City of St. Cloud in Florida * *Hong Kong, Mar 7, 2006 - *PePLink, a leader in citywide WiFi wireless broadband devices today announced the City of St. Cloud, FL, a suburb of Orlando, has chosen PePLink to be the official wireless CPE provider for the Cyber Spot, the City's 100% free citywide high-speed wireless Internet service. With a reliable, secure, ease of use wireless CPE - PePLink Surf, every citizen or business in the city of St. Cloud can connect to the citywide wireless network at a high speed. The CPE greatly enhances the throughput and reliability of both up and down link compared with a wireless-enabled computer desktop or notebook computer. The simple true plug and play nature of the PePLink Surf helps the citizens in St. Cloud to bring the wireless signal indoors with ease. At the same time, the PePLink Surf units can be remotely managed, monitored and provisioned by PePLink's carrier-grade management and reporting solution, PCMS (or PePLink Centralized Management System). This can ensure a scalable and rapid rollout of the wireless systems within a short period of time. This eliminates an onsite installation charge. Being chosen by City of St. Cloud has further endorsed our capability to offer reliable wireless solutions to municipal wireless networks built with mesh network technology, said Alex Chan, Managing Director of PePLink. PePLink Surf together with PCMS is the complete solution specifically designed for today's citywide wireless networks. PePLink Surf series consists of Surf 200BG and Surf 400BG. For more information on PePLink Surf series, please visit http://www.peplink.com http://www.peplink.com/. Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: roflol The city is selling signal boosters (I read that as amps) to anyone that wants them for $170? Oh man, this deployment is gonna come CRASHING down. Hard. It's really too bad these people are too ignorant, stubborn or just plain stupid to call any of us in to help. sigh Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Matt, A multi-band mesh node does the backhaul on 5 GHz (sometimes with more than one 5 GHz radio). This reduces (but certainly doesn't eliminate) the 2.4 GHz self-interference and other-network-interference level. The reason the big muni projects often select Tropos is that Tropos has the best marketing effort out there and has been in the game longer than most other mesh equipment vendors. I predict it won't take too may big Tropos-based muni networks to fail before future big-city muni administrators will see the light and chose other, more throughput-capable mesh vendors. jack Matt Liotta wrote: In recent post I explained that here in Atlanta you can only use a single 2.4 channel because of the noise floor. How is a multi-band mesh node going to work? Maybe there is a reason the big muni projects keep selecting Tropos. -Matt Jack Unger wrote: Dawn, Thanks for posting the St. Cloud PepLink and HP info. Using standard CPE (PePLink)is very good but using Tropos nodes is very, very bad. Very bad because they only have one single 2.4 GHz radio so after 2 or 3 hops, all the throughput capability is gone not to mention that the interference level from having all the access and backhaul packets colliding on 2.4 GHz (along with any WISP and other 2.4 GHz network packets) will slow all the networks (muni and WISP) down further. I hate to finger anyone but Tropos' stubborn refusal or inability (anyone at Tropos listening???) to produce a 2-band mesh node is going to doom them to failure along with any big city that deploys their nodes without an extremely efficient point-to-multipoint backbone design on 5 GHz. jack Dawn DiPietro wrote: http://www.peplink.com/060306.php Date: March 7, 2006* PePLink announces as the official Citywide Wireless CPE provider for City of St. Cloud in Florida * *Hong Kong, Mar 7, 2006 - *PePLink, a leader in citywide WiFi wireless broadband devices today announced the City of St. Cloud, FL, a suburb of Orlando, has chosen PePLink to be the official wireless CPE provider for the Cyber Spot, the City's 100% free citywide high-speed wireless Internet service. With a reliable, secure, ease of use wireless CPE - PePLink Surf, every citizen or business in the city of St. Cloud can connect to the citywide wireless network at a high speed. The CPE greatly enhances the throughput and reliability of both up and down link compared with a wireless-enabled computer desktop or notebook computer. The simple true plug and play nature of the PePLink Surf helps the citizens in St. Cloud to bring the wireless signal indoors with ease. At the same time, the PePLink Surf units can be remotely managed, monitored and provisioned by PePLink's carrier-grade management and reporting solution, PCMS (or PePLink Centralized Management System). This can ensure a scalable and rapid rollout of the wireless systems within a short period of time. This eliminates an onsite installation charge. Being chosen by City of St. Cloud has further endorsed our capability to offer reliable wireless solutions to municipal wireless networks built with mesh network technology, said Alex Chan, Managing Director of PePLink. PePLink Surf together with PCMS is the complete solution specifically designed for today's citywide wireless networks. PePLink Surf series consists of Surf 200BG and Surf 400BG. For more information on PePLink Surf series, please visit http://www.peplink.com http://www.peplink.com/. Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: roflol The city is selling signal boosters (I read that as amps) to anyone that wants them for $170? Oh man, this deployment is gonna come CRASHING down. Hard. It's really too bad these people are too ignorant, stubborn or just plain stupid to call any of us in to help. sigh Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:07 AM Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ --- --- -- 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)
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Jack Unger wrote: A multi-band mesh node does the backhaul on 5 GHz (sometimes with more than one 5 GHz radio). This reduces (but certainly doesn't eliminate) the 2.4 GHz self-interference and other-network-interference level. You can't use 5 Ghz to go through trees here in Atlanta, so that won't help you. Multi-band mesh nodes simple don't work here. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
So to sum it up IMO physics and limited spectrum makes a muni system impossible to get the coverage they expect. Dont get me wrong, ups just dropped off a mag mount friday to me that I am installing on the van tomorrow. Even if I have to drive 3 blocks or so to connect and pull mail or peek at my intermapper will be a plus. Joe - Original Message - From: Brian Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:44 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes HP likes to design these Tropos networks by never having more than 2 hops before it gets put on some sort of backhaul. This in theory works well but in reality, you still run out of 2.4 GHz channels to place the access nodes on. Remember each radio/mesh unit is at the same height as every other one thus firing their signal directly in to the antenna of all neighboring nodes. The users may not see the noise but node to node traffic certainly hears it. When the mesh radio is deaf because of noise, the network just plain fails to work. End of story. Mesh will simply not work on a loaded residential user based system without a lot more spectrum. People are trying to fight the laws of physics. Ask any ham radio guy about this. When they originally built packet radio networks back in the early 90's, they found you needed separate channels to make it work (and that was only 1200 baud). San Francisco, Philly and any other muni network are going to fail based on this problem. The idea and premise of a muni network is solid based on the points Matt Larsen brought up but as Jack and others have stated, they have been sold on all of the positive benefits but never get told the limitations. The typical IT mentality is that they can throw more money at the problem to increase capacity. This is simply not true based on the limited number of useable channels. Sad thing is there will be a lot of taxpayer money wasted to prove this point. Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com http://www.wirelessmapping.com -Original Message- From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 1:22 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes Dawn, Thanks for posting the St. Cloud PepLink and HP info. Using standard CPE (PePLink)is very good but using Tropos nodes is very, very bad. Very bad because they only have one single 2.4 GHz radio so after 2 or 3 hops, all the throughput capability is gone not to mention that the interference level from having all the access and backhaul packets colliding on 2.4 GHz (along with any WISP and other 2.4 GHz network packets) will slow all the networks (muni and WISP) down further. I hate to finger anyone but Tropos' stubborn refusal or inability (anyone at Tropos listening???) to produce a 2-band mesh node is going to doom them to failure along with any big city that deploys their nodes without an extremely efficient point-to-multipoint backbone design on 5 GHz. jack Dawn DiPietro wrote: http://www.peplink.com/060306.php Date: March 7, 2006* PePLink announces as the official Citywide Wireless CPE provider for City of St. Cloud in Florida * *Hong Kong, Mar 7, 2006 - *PePLink, a leader in citywide WiFi wireless broadband devices today announced the City of St. Cloud, FL, a suburb of Orlando, has chosen PePLink to be the official wireless CPE provider for the Cyber Spot, the City's 100% free citywide high-speed wireless Internet service. With a reliable, secure, ease of use wireless CPE - PePLink Surf, every citizen or business in the city of St. Cloud can connect to the citywide wireless network at a high speed. The CPE greatly enhances the throughput and reliability of both up and down link compared with a wireless-enabled computer desktop or notebook computer. The simple true plug and play nature of the PePLink Surf helps the citizens in St. Cloud to bring the wireless signal indoors with ease. At the same time, the PePLink Surf units can be remotely managed, monitored and provisioned by PePLink's carrier-grade management and reporting solution, PCMS (or PePLink Centralized Management System). This can ensure a scalable and rapid rollout of the wireless systems within a short period of time. This eliminates an onsite installation charge. Being chosen by City of St. Cloud has further endorsed our capability to offer reliable wireless solutions to municipal wireless networks built with mesh network technology, said Alex Chan, Managing Director of PePLink. PePLink Surf together with PCMS is the complete solution specifically designed for today's citywide wireless networks. PePLink Surf series consists of Surf 200BG and Surf 400BG. For more information on PePLink Surf series, please visit http://www.peplink.com http://www.peplink.com/. Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
You make the assumption that the Tropos nodes have little to no attenuation between them, which is a poor assumption. A useful exercise is to drive around and make a list of Metrocom nodes. You'll find that a very small percentage have LOS or even near-LOS to each other. Metrocom certainly was able to provide ubiquitous coverage long before the muni Wi-Fi was all the rage. Where was your physics then? -Matt Brian Webster wrote: HP likes to design these Tropos networks by never having more than 2 hops before it gets put on some sort of backhaul. This in theory works well but in reality, you still run out of 2.4 GHz channels to place the access nodes on. Remember each radio/mesh unit is at the same height as every other one thus firing their signal directly in to the antenna of all neighboring nodes. The users may not see the noise but node to node traffic certainly hears it. When the mesh radio is deaf because of noise, the network just plain fails to work. End of story. Mesh will simply not work on a loaded residential user based system without a lot more spectrum. People are trying to fight the laws of physics. Ask any ham radio guy about this. When they originally built packet radio networks back in the early 90's, they found you needed separate channels to make it work (and that was only 1200 baud). San Francisco, Philly and any other muni network are going to fail based on this problem. The idea and premise of a muni network is solid based on the points Matt Larsen brought up but as Jack and others have stated, they have been sold on all of the positive benefits but never get told the limitations. The typical IT mentality is that they can throw more money at the problem to increase capacity. This is simply not true based on the limited number of useable channels. Sad thing is there will be a lot of taxpayer money wasted to prove this point. Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com http://www.wirelessmapping.com -Original Message- From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 1:22 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes Dawn, Thanks for posting the St. Cloud PepLink and HP info. Using standard CPE (PePLink)is very good but using Tropos nodes is very, very bad. Very bad because they only have one single 2.4 GHz radio so after 2 or 3 hops, all the throughput capability is gone not to mention that the interference level from having all the access and backhaul packets colliding on 2.4 GHz (along with any WISP and other 2.4 GHz network packets) will slow all the networks (muni and WISP) down further. I hate to finger anyone but Tropos' stubborn refusal or inability (anyone at Tropos listening???) to produce a 2-band mesh node is going to doom them to failure along with any big city that deploys their nodes without an extremely efficient point-to-multipoint backbone design on 5 GHz. jack Dawn DiPietro wrote: http://www.peplink.com/060306.php Date: March 7, 2006* PePLink announces as the official Citywide Wireless CPE provider for City of St. Cloud in Florida * *Hong Kong, Mar 7, 2006 - *PePLink, a leader in citywide WiFi wireless broadband devices today announced the City of St. Cloud, FL, a suburb of Orlando, has chosen PePLink to be the official wireless CPE provider for the Cyber Spot, the City's 100% free citywide high-speed wireless Internet service. With a reliable, secure, ease of use wireless CPE - PePLink Surf, every citizen or business in the city of St. Cloud can connect to the citywide wireless network at a high speed. The CPE greatly enhances the throughput and reliability of both up and down link compared with a wireless-enabled computer desktop or notebook computer. The simple true plug and play nature of the PePLink Surf helps the citizens in St. Cloud to bring the wireless signal indoors with ease. At the same time, the PePLink Surf units can be remotely managed, monitored and provisioned by PePLink's carrier-grade management and reporting solution, PCMS (or PePLink Centralized Management System). This can ensure a scalable and rapid rollout of the wireless systems within a short period of time. This eliminates an onsite installation charge. Being chosen by City of St. Cloud has further endorsed our capability to offer reliable wireless solutions to municipal wireless networks built with mesh network technology, said Alex Chan, Managing Director of PePLink. PePLink Surf together with PCMS is the complete solution specifically designed for today's citywide wireless networks. PePLink Surf series consists of Surf 200BG and Surf 400BG. For more information on PePLink Surf series, please visit http://www.peplink.com http://www.peplink.com/. Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: roflol The city is selling signal boosters (I read that as amps) to anyone that wants them for $170? Oh man, this deployment is gonna come CRASHING down. Hard. It's really too bad
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Then the 5 GHz backhaul network must have antennas that are raised above the trees. Another option is to backhaul with city-owned fiber. Backhauling on 900 MHz is a possible third option. All it takes is rf knowledge, creativity, and cooperation. jack Matt Liotta wrote: Jack Unger wrote: A multi-band mesh node does the backhaul on 5 GHz (sometimes with more than one 5 GHz radio). This reduces (but certainly doesn't eliminate) the 2.4 GHz self-interference and other-network-interference level. You can't use 5 Ghz to go through trees here in Atlanta, so that won't help you. Multi-band mesh nodes simple don't work here. -Matt -- 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] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Matt, To answer your questions (and they are good questions)... 1. The attenuation between 2.4 GHz nodes is not enough to prevent each node from hearing multiple other nodes as noise (thus more packet retransmissions and more reduced throughtput). This requires understanding link budgets, signal-to-noise ratios, and receiver threshold specifications. 2. Metricom is not a good comparison because: a. They were frequency hoppers on 900 MHz. b. They promised low (128kbps and then 256kbps, if memory serves) throughput. This doesn't compare to today's expected throughput levels. c. They eventually went to a two-band node that backhauled on 2.4 GHz. so they could increase throughput. d. Metricom then went out of business. Physics is still physics and companies need to but don't yet understand wireless physics. They need this understanding before bidding on muni projects and before they make these high-expectation, wireless-for-all, triple-play (voice, video, data) promises to public officials. Once a muni network is engineered incorrectly and deployed incorrectly, it may well take as much additional money to fix it (if it even can be fixed) as it took to deploy it in the first place. jack Matt Liotta wrote: You make the assumption that the Tropos nodes have little to no attenuation between them, which is a poor assumption. A useful exercise is to drive around and make a list of Metrocom nodes. You'll find that a very small percentage have LOS or even near-LOS to each other. Metrocom certainly was able to provide ubiquitous coverage long before the muni Wi-Fi was all the rage. Where was your physics then? -Matt Brian Webster wrote: HP likes to design these Tropos networks by never having more than 2 hops before it gets put on some sort of backhaul. This in theory works well but in reality, you still run out of 2.4 GHz channels to place the access nodes on. Remember each radio/mesh unit is at the same height as every other one thus firing their signal directly in to the antenna of all neighboring nodes. The users may not see the noise but node to node traffic certainly hears it. When the mesh radio is deaf because of noise, the network just plain fails to work. End of story. Mesh will simply not work on a loaded residential user based system without a lot more spectrum. People are trying to fight the laws of physics. Ask any ham radio guy about this. When they originally built packet radio networks back in the early 90's, they found you needed separate channels to make it work (and that was only 1200 baud). San Francisco, Philly and any other muni network are going to fail based on this problem. The idea and premise of a muni network is solid based on the points Matt Larsen brought up but as Jack and others have stated, they have been sold on all of the positive benefits but never get told the limitations. The typical IT mentality is that they can throw more money at the problem to increase capacity. This is simply not true based on the limited number of useable channels. Sad thing is there will be a lot of taxpayer money wasted to prove this point. Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com http://www.wirelessmapping.com -Original Message- From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 1:22 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes Dawn, Thanks for posting the St. Cloud PepLink and HP info. Using standard CPE (PePLink)is very good but using Tropos nodes is very, very bad. Very bad because they only have one single 2.4 GHz radio so after 2 or 3 hops, all the throughput capability is gone not to mention that the interference level from having all the access and backhaul packets colliding on 2.4 GHz (along with any WISP and other 2.4 GHz network packets) will slow all the networks (muni and WISP) down further. I hate to finger anyone but Tropos' stubborn refusal or inability (anyone at Tropos listening???) to produce a 2-band mesh node is going to doom them to failure along with any big city that deploys their nodes without an extremely efficient point-to-multipoint backbone design on 5 GHz. jack Dawn DiPietro wrote: http://www.peplink.com/060306.php Date: March 7, 2006* PePLink announces as the official Citywide Wireless CPE provider for City of St. Cloud in Florida * *Hong Kong, Mar 7, 2006 - *PePLink, a leader in citywide WiFi wireless broadband devices today announced the City of St. Cloud, FL, a suburb of Orlando, has chosen PePLink to be the official wireless CPE provider for the Cyber Spot, the City's 100% free citywide high-speed wireless Internet service. With a reliable, secure, ease of use wireless CPE - PePLink Surf, every citizen or business in the city of St. Cloud can connect to the citywide wireless network at a high speed. The CPE greatly enhances the throughput and reliability of both up and down link compared with a wireless-enabled computer
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
How do you raise the antennas above the trees without building really tall poles? Trees around here are 60-70ft. City-owned fiber only exists in places with enough density that there aren't any trees to begin with. Residential areas generally have lots of trees and no reason for fiber runs. 900Mhz won't get you much throughput; certainly not enough to offer an alternative to DSL. -Matt Jack Unger wrote: Then the 5 GHz backhaul network must have antennas that are raised above the trees. Another option is to backhaul with city-owned fiber. Backhauling on 900 MHz is a possible third option. All it takes is rf knowledge, creativity, and cooperation. jack Matt Liotta wrote: Jack Unger wrote: A multi-band mesh node does the backhaul on 5 GHz (sometimes with more than one 5 GHz radio). This reduces (but certainly doesn't eliminate) the 2.4 GHz self-interference and other-network-interference level. You can't use 5 Ghz to go through trees here in Atlanta, so that won't help you. Multi-band mesh nodes simple don't work here. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
OK Matt, being a creative person, you can then suggest the use of DSL for the backhaul... jack Matt Liotta wrote: How do you raise the antennas above the trees without building really tall poles? Trees around here are 60-70ft. City-owned fiber only exists in places with enough density that there aren't any trees to begin with. Residential areas generally have lots of trees and no reason for fiber runs. 900Mhz won't get you much throughput; certainly not enough to offer an alternative to DSL. -Matt Jack Unger wrote: Then the 5 GHz backhaul network must have antennas that are raised above the trees. Another option is to backhaul with city-owned fiber. Backhauling on 900 MHz is a possible third option. All it takes is rf knowledge, creativity, and cooperation. jack Matt Liotta wrote: Jack Unger wrote: A multi-band mesh node does the backhaul on 5 GHz (sometimes with more than one 5 GHz radio). This reduces (but certainly doesn't eliminate) the 2.4 GHz self-interference and other-network-interference level. You can't use 5 Ghz to go through trees here in Atlanta, so that won't help you. Multi-band mesh nodes simple don't work here. -Matt -- 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] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
The SR9 cards might be interesting for this app... chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 2:39 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes OK Matt, being a creative person, you can then suggest the use of DSL for the backhaul... jack Matt Liotta wrote: How do you raise the antennas above the trees without building really tall poles? Trees around here are 60-70ft. City-owned fiber only exists in places with enough density that there aren't any trees to begin with. Residential areas generally have lots of trees and no reason for fiber runs. 900Mhz won't get you much throughput; certainly not enough to offer an alternative to DSL. -Matt Jack Unger wrote: Then the 5 GHz backhaul network must have antennas that are raised above the trees. Another option is to backhaul with city-owned fiber. Backhauling on 900 MHz is a possible third option. All it takes is rf knowledge, creativity, and cooperation. jack Matt Liotta wrote: Jack Unger wrote: A multi-band mesh node does the backhaul on 5 GHz (sometimes with more than one 5 GHz radio). This reduces (but certainly doesn't eliminate) the 2.4 GHz self-interference and other-network-interference level. You can't use 5 Ghz to go through trees here in Atlanta, so that won't help you. Multi-band mesh nodes simple don't work here. -Matt -- 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/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Jack Unger wrote: 1. The attenuation between 2.4 GHz nodes is not enough to prevent each node from hearing multiple other nodes as noise (thus more packet retransmissions and more reduced throughtput). This requires understanding link budgets, signal-to-noise ratios, and receiver threshold specifications. Luckily for us we happen to be a WISP that understands these issues. We have deployed several Tropos-based networks with sufficient attenuation between nodes. 2. Metricom is not a good comparison because: a. They were frequency hoppers on 900 MHz. Physics applies on all spectrum. b. They promised low (128kbps and then 256kbps, if memory serves) throughput. This doesn't compare to today's expected throughput levels. It was stated that the problems occurred for hams at 1200 baud. c. They eventually went to a two-band node that backhauled on 2.4 GHz. so they could increase throughput. Only in select areas; the vast majority of the network was single band. d. Metricom then went out of business. The network did work and it was profitable in a number of cities. The fact that there was a market bust or that company built more cities than they had cash flow to support isn't a technical concern. Physics is still physics and companies need to but don't yet understand wireless physics. They need this understanding before bidding on muni projects and before they make these high-expectation, wireless-for-all, triple-play (voice, video, data) promises to public officials. Once a muni network is engineered incorrectly and deployed incorrectly, it may well take as much additional money to fix it (if it even can be fixed) as it took to deploy it in the first place. Math is still math and companies need to but don't yet understand advanced mathematics. This generalization is just as accurate as your statement, but hopefully seems more absurd. Some companies understand wireless physics. Some of these same companies even deploy wireless networks that work. Some markets meet the correct criteria to have a muni Wi-Fi network that can be successful; some even exist today. How do any of these statements specify the success of muni Wi-Fi in general? -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Jack, Not a problem. This discussion needed the information and no one else posted it. I have been reading up on this network since Ken went to the MuniWireless Show in Atlanta. Unfortunately some of the articles I read are no longer available. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Jack Unger wrote: Dawn, Thanks for posting the St. Cloud PepLink and HP info. --- --- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Similar is not the same. I couldn't find detailed specifications online. However, I do see that the unit has lower transmit power, it doesn't seem to be capable of being powered by AC, it doesn't seem capable of powering other devices such as a Canopy or Trango SM, and while there is a picture of some separate photo-cell power there is no specifications for that either. For example, many photo-cell taps are limited to 240v, but many street lights are 277v/480v. -Matt Jeffrey Thomas wrote: Airmatrix offers very similar features for less than 1/3 the cost of tropos. They also ofer Pole mounted power, and actually have a much lower power consumption, in addition to having multiple configurations including dual Radio diversity 2.4, dual radio diversity 2.4/5.8, etc. - Jeff On 4/24/06 10:27 AM, Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A Tropos unit has a 1W transmitter, is capable of being powered via PoE or via AC delivered through standard outlets as well as a variety of photo-cell taps including high-voltage ones. When powered with AC, it is capable of providing PoE power out of its Ethernet ports supporting equipment from Motorola and Trango even though neither using standard PoE. It mounts like a dream, includes level bubbles for perfect orientation, and units can be slid into and out of place with only a single screw enabling nodes to be changed in less than 5 minutes. Quite simply, a Tropos unit is beautifully engineered. Where can I find the parts to make the same thing in a single package? -Matt chris cooper wrote: Why not just buy the cards, boards, antennas and make a few yourself? c -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:46 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes Then there are companies like airmatrix that charge less than 1k per node. The key with mesh is density, and many mesh startup's fail because they Underbuild their networks. - Jeff On 4/24/06 7:53 AM, John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know what equipment they are using, but Cisco AP1500's (mesh) are abnout $3700 each and Cisco recommends 18-20 per square mile. Thats $74,000 for the boxes plus antennas, mounts, POE and install. John -Original Message- From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:26 AM To: ''WISPA General List'' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes $173K per mile build out cost? Somebody just bought a new boat.. c -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Matt, hit me offlist and I will be glad to send you all that. We have used AM for deployments on lightpoles and I know there are configurations available to power more than a single unit. - Jeff On 4/24/06 1:42 PM, Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Similar is not the same. I couldn't find detailed specifications online. However, I do see that the unit has lower transmit power, it doesn't seem to be capable of being powered by AC, it doesn't seem capable of powering other devices such as a Canopy or Trango SM, and while there is a picture of some separate photo-cell power there is no specifications for that either. For example, many photo-cell taps are limited to 240v, but many street lights are 277v/480v. -Matt Jeffrey Thomas wrote: Airmatrix offers very similar features for less than 1/3 the cost of tropos. They also ofer Pole mounted power, and actually have a much lower power consumption, in addition to having multiple configurations including dual Radio diversity 2.4, dual radio diversity 2.4/5.8, etc. - Jeff On 4/24/06 10:27 AM, Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A Tropos unit has a 1W transmitter, is capable of being powered via PoE or via AC delivered through standard outlets as well as a variety of photo-cell taps including high-voltage ones. When powered with AC, it is capable of providing PoE power out of its Ethernet ports supporting equipment from Motorola and Trango even though neither using standard PoE. It mounts like a dream, includes level bubbles for perfect orientation, and units can be slid into and out of place with only a single screw enabling nodes to be changed in less than 5 minutes. Quite simply, a Tropos unit is beautifully engineered. Where can I find the parts to make the same thing in a single package? -Matt chris cooper wrote: Why not just buy the cards, boards, antennas and make a few yourself? c -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:46 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes Then there are companies like airmatrix that charge less than 1k per node. The key with mesh is density, and many mesh startup's fail because they Underbuild their networks. - Jeff On 4/24/06 7:53 AM, John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know what equipment they are using, but Cisco AP1500's (mesh) are abnout $3700 each and Cisco recommends 18-20 per square mile. Thats $74,000 for the boxes plus antennas, mounts, POE and install. John -Original Message- From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:26 AM To: ''WISPA General List'' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes $173K per mile build out cost? Somebody just bought a new boat.. c -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Its amazing how many integrators forget the basic principle, that the RF reflection off the outside of a concrete or brick wall is at a higher signal strength than the signal that penetrates the wall and enters the home. What good is signal into the home if you wipe out the transport down the street? I thing the Muni Mesh needs a few real world failures fast to give everyone a reality check. Its not that I'm wishing harm to others, its just that I do not see any way Muni Mesh its going to work out well technically for most big city Muni Mesh WiFi networks as designed. By allowing the flaws to surface early will possibly save a lot of money for Munis and a lot of damage to reputation of the capabilty of the technology. Right now there is a rat race to see who can do the successful case study first, copying off other Muni's plans that have not been proven successful yet. I look at it as the race to self destruction. The muni nets that survive I believe are going to be the ones that are smart enough to diversify on their spectrum choice. Robert Frost- I took the path less travelled and it made all the difference.. The biggest probelm is to may are going to try and jump on 5.8Ghz, the high power band. Unfortuneately both on t he front mile to attempt penetrate walls, and on the backend for backhaul. But what they are going to do instead is interfere and saturate/waste the most valuable band unecessarilly. The secret to Muni Mesh Wifi success is going to be their abilty to acknowledge the new spectrum available to them such as the vast 255 Mhz of 5.4Ghz. There is enough there for Last mile, transport, and backhaul, and likely not going to interfere with much of any one as it is fresh under used spectrum. High Power is not needed for the small coverage areas typical of a city. As Matt Liotta once pointed out in previous debates, the problem is not the principle MESH. MESH is a valid technique to increase capacity and redundancy, if used properly for the right applications. I believe the problem is the ignoring of the physics of RF propogation. The other flaw that cities forget is that there are advantages of using multiple levels of height as well as density. Although Munis own the ride of ways, they rarely own the height of the city or preferred broadcast sites, and taht puts them at a disadvantage. I believe that many small town muni networks will do well. But they often have different characteristics than the big city. Buildings often have different arhetecture for one. Fewers projects and interests to interfere, as another reason. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brian Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 11:10 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes Jack, I hate to say it but didn't we say I told you so There is just not enough spectrum to design networks like this to work with anything but dedicated CPE devices with outdoor antennas. Simply flooding an area with more signal to let laptops inside a house work will not solve the problem. It just creates more noise on already maxed out spectrum. I really wish the vendors and project stalwarts would admit this is a problem with these networks and not gloss it over. Self interference and outside interference are always going to be huge problems in these muni-networks. Everyone trying to build on the fact that off the shelf consumer devices can access this network will be the downfall. Wi-fi was never designed for a massive outdoor deployment such as this and when you try to make up for the fact that you do not have control over the CPE when it comes to proper RF planning you are doomed to failure. Just my 2 cents. Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com http://www.wirelessmapping.com -Original Message- From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:29 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni problems that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be done correctly and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to play a positive role in proper network design and operation however most muni networks are incorrectly designed by people with limited wireless experience (yes, that even includes some mesh network vendors) which will lead to network failure, waste of taxpayer money, and possible loss of jobs on the part of the city IT folks (not to mention the elected officials) who backed the networks without first learning about how wireless technology really works. jack George wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com
