Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon
So the AP will deliver 14Mbps of bandwidth even if all the SM's are only running at 1x rate? Travis Microserv Mike Bushard, Jr wrote: Run Advantage AP's and Legacy SM's. With the Advantage AP's and legacy SM's you get the Latency, and High Priority Channel all the time, and can burst to full 2X Rate. If you need the full 2x Rate Sustained, buy an Advantage SM. To answer your question, yes the Advantage AP will deliver the full 14Mb Aggregate. Mike Bushard, Jr Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 11:51 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon Another quick question... If you are running a Canopy Advantage AP and you use regular Canopy SM's, can the AP still deliver the 14Mbps of bandwidth, or will it be limited to 7Mbps (like the SM's)? Trying to decide if I want to use Advantage SM's or just regular? Travis Microserv Anthony Will wrote: Well I have had 2.4ghz radio's link up at -89db (not very well mind you but...) so I don't know what to tell you other then Moto has traditionally understated there spec sheets. The GPS is what sets the timing for the AP's. The AP's coordinate the timing slots for all SM's registered to them. So how it works is that all AP's on channel 1 across the world all transmit at the same time, and all SM's synced to a AP on channel 1 with GPS timing from the AP listen at the same time. Distance is not relevant unless you are utilizing the feature set of the SM to retransmit a GPS sync pulse that it receives from and AP to a BH or AP. The lag that is introduced by having to transmit that pulse info across the wireless link to the SM retransmitting is the only time that distance can come into play. The application this is used for is for a cheap repeater system so that you dont have to have a GPS synchronizing device at every tower. /SM GPS --AP#1 / \ \SM (retransmitting GPS sync pulse) --AP#2 --SM (retransmitting GPS sync pulse) --AP#3 (this AP will be out of sync with AP#1) Basically the timing is measured in nano seconds so it takes to long for RF to transmit the data across the wireless links to continue to propagate the timing signal. But if you put a GPS sync generating device at AP#3 it would be in perfect time with AP#1 and close enough timing with AP#2 that they all would get along. One thing to keep in mind is if you are the only Canopy shop in the area you can have your AP's generate the sync pulse and avoid the cost of the GPS synchronizing items. Also again as for the distance statement. 6 AP's in a cluster sharing 3 channels have to be synced. believe me the messy antenna on the Canopy units dont have a good enough F/B ratio to not hear another AP 6 away from it. The two AP's that are back to back share the same channel so that when they transmit the SM's that are listening are as far away from each other as possible and thus reduce any chance of talking over each other. The largest benefit that GPS sync allows is to add additional capacity to area's by allowing for more towers to be in a smaller area without self interference. If long range rural deployments are the plan then GPS sync will only benefit you if you have competitors utilizing the same equipment and configuration in the area. So a Moto advantage cluster has about 84mb total (Classic Canopy would be 42mb) FTP bandwidth available to it. If more is needed you can place the towers with in a few miles and divide a cell into two micro cells each with a possible 84mb of total bandwidth for a total of 168mb serviced to a given area. One last note, GPS timing will not allow for two separate clusters of the same type ( two 2.4ghz clusters) to be on the same tower. I can't write out whats in my head on this getting a little late in the night but if you wanted to I could talk to you over the phone and explain it. Send me an email to anthonyw (at) broadband-mn.com and Ill give you my cell phone number or give you a call. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, First, the spec sheet on Motorola's website says -86 RSSI. What happens when you have more than 3 towers outside of the 8 mile range of GPS sync? The 2.4ghz signal will definately travel that far, causing self-interference, correct? Travis Microserv Anthony Will wrote: Answers in-line Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I'd like to go back to the specs on different radios just so I can compare for myself... Trango 2.4ghz: 5Mbps auto ratio 8 non-overlapping channels 10mhz spectrum per channel -90 Receive level 15 mile range (without a grid) External connector and dual-pol integrated antenna $879 AP (WISP price) $479 SU (WISP price) Canopy 2.4ghz (regular): 7Mbps fixed ratio 3 non-overlapping channels
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon
Not the case, 14 mbps is 2x mode, but the only reason for all your Sm's would be a 1x would be cause they are old radios (p7,p8) or you have very poor links ... Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 7:03 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon So the AP will deliver 14Mbps of bandwidth even if all the SM's are only running at 1x rate? Travis Microserv Mike Bushard, Jr wrote: Run Advantage AP's and Legacy SM's. With the Advantage AP's and legacy SM's you get the Latency, and High Priority Channel all the time, and can burst to full 2X Rate. If you need the full 2x Rate Sustained, buy an Advantage SM. To answer your question, yes the Advantage AP will deliver the full 14Mb Aggregate. Mike Bushard, Jr Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 11:51 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon Another quick question... If you are running a Canopy Advantage AP and you use regular Canopy SM's, can the AP still deliver the 14Mbps of bandwidth, or will it be limited to 7Mbps (like the SM's)? Trying to decide if I want to use Advantage SM's or just regular? Travis Microserv Anthony Will wrote: Well I have had 2.4ghz radio's link up at -89db (not very well mind you but...) so I don't know what to tell you other then Moto has traditionally understated there spec sheets. The GPS is what sets the timing for the AP's. The AP's coordinate the timing slots for all SM's registered to them. So how it works is that all AP's on channel 1 across the world all transmit at the same time, and all SM's synced to a AP on channel 1 with GPS timing from the AP listen at the same time. Distance is not relevant unless you are utilizing the feature set of the SM to retransmit a GPS sync pulse that it receives from and AP to a BH or AP. The lag that is introduced by having to transmit that pulse info across the wireless link to the SM retransmitting is the only time that distance can come into play. The application this is used for is for a cheap repeater system so that you dont have to have a GPS synchronizing device at every tower. /SM GPS --AP#1 / \ \SM (retransmitting GPS sync pulse) --AP#2 --SM (retransmitting GPS sync pulse) --AP#3 (this AP will be out of sync with AP#1) Basically the timing is measured in nano seconds so it takes to long for RF to transmit the data across the wireless links to continue to propagate the timing signal. But if you put a GPS sync generating device at AP#3 it would be in perfect time with AP#1 and close enough timing with AP#2 that they all would get along. One thing to keep in mind is if you are the only Canopy shop in the area you can have your AP's generate the sync pulse and avoid the cost of the GPS synchronizing items. Also again as for the distance statement. 6 AP's in a cluster sharing 3 channels have to be synced. believe me the messy antenna on the Canopy units dont have a good enough F/B ratio to not hear another AP 6 away from it. The two AP's that are back to back share the same channel so that when they transmit the SM's that are listening are as far away from each other as possible and thus reduce any chance of talking over each other. The largest benefit that GPS sync allows is to add additional capacity to area's by allowing for more towers to be in a smaller area without self interference. If long range rural deployments are the plan then GPS sync will only benefit you if you have competitors utilizing the same equipment and configuration in the area. So a Moto advantage cluster has about 84mb total (Classic Canopy would be 42mb) FTP bandwidth available to it. If more is needed you can place the towers with in a few miles and divide a cell into two micro cells each with a possible 84mb of total bandwidth for a total of 168mb serviced to a given area. One last note, GPS timing will not allow for two separate clusters of the same type ( two 2.4ghz clusters) to be on the same tower. I can't write out whats in my head on this getting a little late in the night but if you wanted to I could talk to you over the phone and explain it. Send me an email to anthonyw (at) broadband-mn.com and Ill give you my cell phone number or give you a call. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, First, the spec sheet on Motorola's website says -86 RSSI. What happens when you have more than 3 towers outside of the 8 mile range of GPS sync? The 2.4ghz signal will definately travel that far, causing self-interference, correct? Travis
Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon
Hi, Don't you have to have like a -65 or better signal to get 2x rate? Travis Microserv Gino A. Villarini wrote: Not the case, 14 mbps is 2x mode, but the only reason for all your Sm's would be a 1x would be cause they are old radios (p7,p8) or you have very poor links ... Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 7:03 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon So the AP will deliver 14Mbps of bandwidth even if all the SM's are only running at 1x rate? Travis Microserv Mike Bushard, Jr wrote: Run Advantage AP's and Legacy SM's. With the Advantage AP's and legacy SM's you get the Latency, and High Priority Channel all the time, and can burst to full 2X Rate. If you need the full 2x Rate Sustained, buy an Advantage SM. To answer your question, yes the Advantage AP will deliver the full 14Mb Aggregate. Mike Bushard, Jr Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 11:51 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon Another quick question... If you are running a Canopy Advantage AP and you use regular Canopy SM's, can the AP still deliver the 14Mbps of bandwidth, or will it be limited to 7Mbps (like the SM's)? Trying to decide if I want to use Advantage SM's or just regular? Travis Microserv Anthony Will wrote: Well I have had 2.4ghz radio's link up at -89db (not very well mind you but...) so I don't know what to tell you other then Moto has traditionally understated there spec sheets. The GPS is what sets the timing for the AP's. The AP's coordinate the timing slots for all SM's registered to them. So how it works is that all AP's on channel 1 across the world all transmit at the same time, and all SM's synced to a AP on channel 1 with GPS timing from the AP listen at the same time. Distance is not relevant unless you are utilizing the feature set of the SM to retransmit a GPS sync pulse that it receives from and AP to a BH or AP. The lag that is introduced by having to transmit that pulse info across the wireless link to the SM retransmitting is the only time that distance can come into play. The application this is used for is for a cheap repeater system so that you dont have to have a GPS synchronizing device at every tower. /SM GPS --AP#1 / \ \SM (retransmitting GPS sync pulse) --AP#2 --SM (retransmitting GPS sync pulse) --AP#3 (this AP will be out of sync with AP#1) Basically the timing is measured in nano seconds so it takes to long for RF to transmit the data across the wireless links to continue to propagate the timing signal. But if you put a GPS sync generating device at AP#3 it would be in perfect time with AP#1 and close enough timing with AP#2 that they all would get along. One thing to keep in mind is if you are the only Canopy shop in the area you can have your AP's generate the sync pulse and avoid the cost of the GPS synchronizing items. Also again as for the distance statement. 6 AP's in a cluster sharing 3 channels have to be synced. believe me the messy antenna on the Canopy units dont have a good enough F/B ratio to not hear another AP 6 away from it. The two AP's that are back to back share the same channel so that when they transmit the SM's that are listening are as far away from each other as possible and thus reduce any chance of talking over each other. The largest benefit that GPS sync allows is to add additional capacity to area's by allowing for more towers to be in a smaller area without self interference. If long range rural deployments are the plan then GPS sync will only benefit you if you have competitors utilizing the same equipment and configuration in the area. So a Moto advantage cluster has about 84mb total (Classic Canopy would be 42mb) FTP bandwidth available to it. If more is needed you can place the towers with in a few miles and divide a cell into two micro cells each with a possible 84mb of total bandwidth for a total of 168mb serviced to a given area. One last note, GPS timing will not allow for two separate clusters of the same type ( two 2.4ghz clusters) to be on the same tower. I can't write out whats in my head on this getting a little late in the night but if you wanted to I could talk to you over the phone and explain it. Send me an email to anthonyw (at) broadband-mn.com and Ill give you my cell phone number or give you a call. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, First, the spec sheet on Motorola's website says -86 RSSI. What happens when you have more than 3 towers outside
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon
I have 2x links at -78 and so Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 7:22 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon Hi, Don't you have to have like a -65 or better signal to get 2x rate? Travis Microserv Gino A. Villarini wrote: Not the case, 14 mbps is 2x mode, but the only reason for all your Sm's would be a 1x would be cause they are old radios (p7,p8) or you have very poor links ... Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 7:03 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon So the AP will deliver 14Mbps of bandwidth even if all the SM's are only running at 1x rate? Travis Microserv Mike Bushard, Jr wrote: Run Advantage AP's and Legacy SM's. With the Advantage AP's and legacy SM's you get the Latency, and High Priority Channel all the time, and can burst to full 2X Rate. If you need the full 2x Rate Sustained, buy an Advantage SM. To answer your question, yes the Advantage AP will deliver the full 14Mb Aggregate. Mike Bushard, Jr Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 11:51 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon Another quick question... If you are running a Canopy Advantage AP and you use regular Canopy SM's, can the AP still deliver the 14Mbps of bandwidth, or will it be limited to 7Mbps (like the SM's)? Trying to decide if I want to use Advantage SM's or just regular? Travis Microserv Anthony Will wrote: Well I have had 2.4ghz radio's link up at -89db (not very well mind you but...) so I don't know what to tell you other then Moto has traditionally understated there spec sheets. The GPS is what sets the timing for the AP's. The AP's coordinate the timing slots for all SM's registered to them. So how it works is that all AP's on channel 1 across the world all transmit at the same time, and all SM's synced to a AP on channel 1 with GPS timing from the AP listen at the same time. Distance is not relevant unless you are utilizing the feature set of the SM to retransmit a GPS sync pulse that it receives from and AP to a BH or AP. The lag that is introduced by having to transmit that pulse info across the wireless link to the SM retransmitting is the only time that distance can come into play. The application this is used for is for a cheap repeater system so that you dont have to have a GPS synchronizing device at every tower. /SM GPS --AP#1 / \ \SM (retransmitting GPS sync pulse) --AP#2 --SM (retransmitting GPS sync pulse) --AP#3 (this AP will be out of sync with AP#1) Basically the timing is measured in nano seconds so it takes to long for RF to transmit the data across the wireless links to continue to propagate the timing signal. But if you put a GPS sync generating device at AP#3 it would be in perfect time with AP#1 and close enough timing with AP#2 that they all would get along. One thing to keep in mind is if you are the only Canopy shop in the area you can have your AP's generate the sync pulse and avoid the cost of the GPS synchronizing items. Also again as for the distance statement. 6 AP's in a cluster sharing 3 channels have to be synced. believe me the messy antenna on the Canopy units dont have a good enough F/B ratio to not hear another AP 6 away from it. The two AP's that are back to back share the same channel so that when they transmit the SM's that are listening are as far away from each other as possible and thus reduce any chance of talking over each other. The largest benefit that GPS sync allows is to add additional capacity to area's by allowing for more towers to be in a smaller area without self interference. If long range rural deployments are the plan then GPS sync will only benefit you if you have competitors utilizing the same equipment and configuration in the area. So a Moto advantage cluster has about 84mb total (Classic Canopy would be 42mb) FTP bandwidth available to it. If more is needed you can place the towers with in a few miles and divide a cell into two micro cells each with a possible 84mb of total bandwidth for a total of 168mb serviced to a given area. One last note, GPS timing will not allow for two separate clusters of the same type ( two 2.4ghz clusters) to be on the same tower. I can't write out whats in my head on this getting a little late in the night but if you wanted to I
Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon
Ok. thanks for the information. Travis Microserv Gino A. Villarini wrote: I have 2x links at -78 and so Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 7:22 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon Hi, Don't you have to have like a -65 or better signal to get 2x rate? Travis Microserv Gino A. Villarini wrote: Not the case, 14 mbps is 2x mode, but the only reason for all your Sm's would be a 1x would be cause they are old radios (p7,p8) or you have very poor links ... Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 7:03 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon So the AP will deliver 14Mbps of bandwidth even if all the SM's are only running at 1x rate? Travis Microserv Mike Bushard, Jr wrote: Run Advantage AP's and Legacy SM's. With the Advantage AP's and legacy SM's you get the Latency, and High Priority Channel all the time, and can burst to full 2X Rate. If you need the full 2x Rate Sustained, buy an Advantage SM. To answer your question, yes the Advantage AP will deliver the full 14Mb Aggregate. Mike Bushard, Jr Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 11:51 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon Another quick question... If you are running a Canopy Advantage AP and you use regular Canopy SM's, can the AP still deliver the 14Mbps of bandwidth, or will it be limited to 7Mbps (like the SM's)? Trying to decide if I want to use Advantage SM's or just regular? Travis Microserv Anthony Will wrote: Well I have had 2.4ghz radio's link up at -89db (not very well mind you but...) so I don't know what to tell you other then Moto has traditionally understated there spec sheets. The GPS is what sets the timing for the AP's. The AP's coordinate the timing slots for all SM's registered to them. So how it works is that all AP's on channel 1 across the world all transmit at the same time, and all SM's synced to a AP on channel 1 with GPS timing from the AP listen at the same time. Distance is not relevant unless you are utilizing the feature set of the SM to retransmit a GPS sync pulse that it receives from and AP to a BH or AP. The lag that is introduced by having to transmit that pulse info across the wireless link to the SM retransmitting is the only time that distance can come into play. The application this is used for is for a cheap repeater system so that you dont have to have a GPS synchronizing device at every tower. /SM GPS --AP#1 / \ \SM (retransmitting GPS sync pulse) --AP#2 --SM (retransmitting GPS sync pulse) --AP#3 (this AP will be out of sync with AP#1) Basically the timing is measured in nano seconds so it takes to long for RF to transmit the data across the wireless links to continue to propagate the timing signal. But if you put a GPS sync generating device at AP#3 it would be in perfect time with AP#1 and close enough timing with AP#2 that they all would get along. One thing to keep in mind is if you are the only Canopy shop in the area you can have your AP's generate the sync pulse and avoid the cost of the GPS synchronizing items. Also again as for the distance statement. 6 AP's in a cluster sharing 3 channels have to be synced. believe me the messy antenna on the Canopy units dont have a good enough F/B ratio to not hear another AP 6 away from it. The two AP's that are back to back share the same channel so that when they transmit the SM's that are listening are as far away from each other as possible and thus reduce any chance of talking over each other. The largest benefit that GPS sync allows is to add additional capacity to area's by allowing for more towers to be in a smaller area without self interference. If long range rural deployments are the plan then GPS sync will only benefit you if you have competitors utilizing the same equipment and configuration in the area. So a Moto advantage cluster has about 84mb total (Classic Canopy would be 42mb) FTP bandwidth available to it. If more is needed you can place the towers with in a few miles and divide a cell into two micro cells each with a possible 84mb of total bandwidth for a total of 168mb serviced to a given area. One last note, GPS timing will not allow for two separate clusters of the same type ( two 2.4ghz clusters) to be on the same tower. I can't write out
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon
If you are buying all new hardware (P9) it will all do 2X rate (14Mbps). We run Advantage AP's and Legacy SM's, here's why: With the Advantage AP you it will fun full 2X 14Mbps all the time. Legacy SM's will run Full 2x Rate for the duration of the burst setting in the SM, alter the Burt bucket is expended it will rate limit itself to a max 7Mbps, Still run in 2x rate but it limits the Ethernet port throughput. It is kind of confusing at first. Mike Bushard, Jr Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 6:03 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon So the AP will deliver 14Mbps of bandwidth even if all the SM's are only running at 1x rate? Travis Microserv Mike Bushard, Jr wrote: Run Advantage AP's and Legacy SM's. With the Advantage AP's and legacy SM's you get the Latency, and High Priority Channel all the time, and can burst to full 2X Rate. If you need the full 2x Rate Sustained, buy an Advantage SM. To answer your question, yes the Advantage AP will deliver the full 14Mb Aggregate. Mike Bushard, Jr Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 11:51 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon Another quick question... If you are running a Canopy Advantage AP and you use regular Canopy SM's, can the AP still deliver the 14Mbps of bandwidth, or will it be limited to 7Mbps (like the SM's)? Trying to decide if I want to use Advantage SM's or just regular? Travis Microserv Anthony Will wrote: Well I have had 2.4ghz radio's link up at -89db (not very well mind you but...) so I don't know what to tell you other then Moto has traditionally understated there spec sheets. The GPS is what sets the timing for the AP's. The AP's coordinate the timing slots for all SM's registered to them. So how it works is that all AP's on channel 1 across the world all transmit at the same time, and all SM's synced to a AP on channel 1 with GPS timing from the AP listen at the same time. Distance is not relevant unless you are utilizing the feature set of the SM to retransmit a GPS sync pulse that it receives from and AP to a BH or AP. The lag that is introduced by having to transmit that pulse info across the wireless link to the SM retransmitting is the only time that distance can come into play. The application this is used for is for a cheap repeater system so that you dont have to have a GPS synchronizing device at every tower. /SM GPS --AP#1 / \ \SM (retransmitting GPS sync pulse) --AP#2 --SM (retransmitting GPS sync pulse) --AP#3 (this AP will be out of sync with AP#1) Basically the timing is measured in nano seconds so it takes to long for RF to transmit the data across the wireless links to continue to propagate the timing signal. But if you put a GPS sync generating device at AP#3 it would be in perfect time with AP#1 and close enough timing with AP#2 that they all would get along. One thing to keep in mind is if you are the only Canopy shop in the area you can have your AP's generate the sync pulse and avoid the cost of the GPS synchronizing items. Also again as for the distance statement. 6 AP's in a cluster sharing 3 channels have to be synced. believe me the messy antenna on the Canopy units dont have a good enough F/B ratio to not hear another AP 6 away from it. The two AP's that are back to back share the same channel so that when they transmit the SM's that are listening are as far away from each other as possible and thus reduce any chance of talking over each other. The largest benefit that GPS sync allows is to add additional capacity to area's by allowing for more towers to be in a smaller area without self interference. If long range rural deployments are the plan then GPS sync will only benefit you if you have competitors utilizing the same equipment and configuration in the area. So a Moto advantage cluster has about 84mb total (Classic Canopy would be 42mb) FTP bandwidth available to it. If more is needed you can place the towers with in a few miles and divide a cell into two micro cells each with a possible 84mb of total bandwidth for a total of 168mb serviced to a given area. One last note, GPS timing will not allow for two separate clusters of the same type ( two 2.4ghz clusters) to be on the same tower. I can't write out whats in my head on this getting a little late in the night but if you wanted to I could talk to you over the phone and explain it. Send me an email to anthonyw (at) broadband-mn.com and Ill give you my cell phone number or give you a call. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, First, the spec
RE: Motorola membership (Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon)
Don, you talking about the AZ event? DSJ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Renner Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 10:58 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: Motorola membership (Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon) I will be in meetings with Motorola next week. Will see if can get done. What level did Alvarion commit to? Might help get them to make bigger outlay. Don Renner NetsurfUSA, Inc. 812-936-4514 [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Harnish Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 8:44 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: Motorola membership (Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon) Im not sure whether they have yet. I think they were last year but I dont recall right now. Anyone who is a valuable Motorola customer want to take this on? Rick Harnish President OnlyInternet Broadband Wireless, Inc. 260-827-2482 Founding Member of WISPA From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dylan Oliver Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:16 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Motorola membership (Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon) On 9/28/06, Rick Harnish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If we can get Motorola to become a WISPA vendor member, we will gladly start a list here without those restrictions. How has Motorola been approached? Best, -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: Motorola membership (Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon)
As one of Canopy's largest ACSPs in the US, I know all the people at Canopy We have been talking about WISPA -- and are putting something together for a sponsorship Stay tuned... -Charles --- Operating Manager - CTI I'm back... WiNOG Wireless Roadshows Coming to a City Near You http://www.winog.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Bushard, Jr Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:37 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: Motorola membership (Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon) I have a few phone numbers. The tech support has gotten better, but I only call them with Prizm/BAM problems. I really don't know that they have a Patrick but the area rep is helpful. He has always gotten me to the right person. Mike Rosedale Cell 847.722.1047 Mike Bushard, Jr Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Rohrbacher Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:20 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: Motorola membership (Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon) Partial hijack here. On a related subject, is there anyone at Motorola that is really good with WISPs. Someone who I can call and talk to as a Canopy user. Not a script reader. I admit I have never called them. I rely on vendors, and other WISPs for all Canopy related info and support. Moto is so big, I'm scared that I'd get the hold music for an hour and them some dude that I can't understand..Ok..what I want to know is what moto # do I call to talk to their Patrick Leary. :)*Patrick suddenly feels warm and fuzzy inside...* So I guess this isn't too much of a hijack. :) How do we contact their Patrick. After we know that we can talk to him about joining. Brian Dylan Oliver wrote: On 9/28/06, *Rick Harnish* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If we can get Motorola to become a WISPA vendor member, we will gladly start a list here without those restrictions. How has Motorola been approached? Best, -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- 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: Motorola membership (Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon)
Thanks Charles, I figured you were on top of it. Rick Harnish President OnlyInternet Broadband Wireless, Inc. 260-827-2482 Founding Member of WISPA -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Wu Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 12:28 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: Motorola membership (Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon) As one of Canopy's largest ACSPs in the US, I know all the people at Canopy We have been talking about WISPA -- and are putting something together for a sponsorship Stay tuned... -Charles --- Operating Manager - CTI I'm back... WiNOG Wireless Roadshows Coming to a City Near You http://www.winog.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Bushard, Jr Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:37 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: Motorola membership (Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon) I have a few phone numbers. The tech support has gotten better, but I only call them with Prizm/BAM problems. I really don't know that they have a Patrick but the area rep is helpful. He has always gotten me to the right person. Mike Rosedale Cell 847.722.1047 Mike Bushard, Jr Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Rohrbacher Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:20 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: Motorola membership (Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon) Partial hijack here. On a related subject, is there anyone at Motorola that is really good with WISPs. Someone who I can call and talk to as a Canopy user. Not a script reader. I admit I have never called them. I rely on vendors, and other WISPs for all Canopy related info and support. Moto is so big, I'm scared that I'd get the hold music for an hour and them some dude that I can't understand..Ok..what I want to know is what moto # do I call to talk to their Patrick Leary. :)*Patrick suddenly feels warm and fuzzy inside...* So I guess this isn't too much of a hijack. :) How do we contact their Patrick. After we know that we can talk to him about joining. Brian Dylan Oliver wrote: On 9/28/06, *Rick Harnish* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If we can get Motorola to become a WISPA vendor member, we will gladly start a list here without those restrictions. How has Motorola been approached? Best, -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- 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] vendor specs -- Jon
I was told a couple of days ago that the regular SMs are going away soon. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gino A. Villarini Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 12:26 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon You can have the cake and eat it too!! Advantage AP to Classic SM can achieve 14 mbps to the Classic SM, not sustained, only burstable. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: Motorola membership (Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon)
Charles, I know this is a duh question, but what is an ACSP?? Ron Wallace Hahnron, Inc. 220 S. Jackson Dt. Addison, MI 49220 Phone: (517)547-8410 Mobile: (517)605-4542 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]-Original Message-From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 12:27 PMTo: ''WISPA General List''Subject: RE: Motorola membership (Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon)As one of Canopy's largest ACSPs in the US, I know all the people at CanopyWe have been talking about WISPA -- and are putting something together for asponsorshipStay tuned...-Charles---Operating Manager - CTII'm back...WiNOG Wireless RoadshowsComing to a City Near Youhttp://www.winog.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OnBehalf Of Mike Bushard, JrSent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:37 AMTo: 'WISPA General List'Subject: RE: Motorola membership (Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon)I have a few phone numbers. The tech support has gotten better, but I onlycall them with Prizm/BAM problems.I really don't know that they have a "Patrick" but the area rep is helpful.He has always gotten me to the right person.Mike Rosedale Cell 847.722.1047Mike Bushard, JrWisper Wireless Solutions, LLC-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OnBehalf Of Brian RohrbacherSent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:20 AMTo: WISPA General ListSubject: Re: Motorola membership (Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon)Partial hijack here. On a related subject, is there anyone at Motorola that is "really good with WISPs". Someone who I can call and talk to as a Canopy user. Not a script reader. I admit I have never called them. I rely on vendors, and other WISPs for all Canopy related info and support. Moto is so big, I'm scared that I'd get the "hold music" for an hour and them some dude that I can't understand..Ok..what I want to know is what moto # do I call to talk to their "Patrick Leary". :) *Patrick suddenly feels warm and fuzzy inside...* So I guess this isn't too much of a hijack. :) How do we contact their "Patrick". After we know that we can talk to him about joining.BrianDylan Oliver wrote: On 9/28/06, *Rick Harnish* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If we can get Motorola to become a WISPA vendor member, we will gladly start a list here without those restrictions. How has Motorola been approached? Best, -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/-- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/-- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: 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: Motorola membership (Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon)
On 9/29/06, Ron Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Charles, I know this is a duh question, but what is an ACSP?? DUH. Google is your friend. It's *obviously* the Australasian College of Sports Physicians.;)-- Dylan OliverPrimaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: Motorola membership (Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon)
Title: Re: Motorola membership (Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon) Association of Closet and Storage Professionals http://www.closets.org/ Humm... Is Charles trying to tell us something :) On 9/29/06 4:22 PM, Dylan Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.acsp.org.au/ On 9/29/06, Ron Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Charles, I know this is a duh question, but what is an ACSP?? DUH. Google is your friend. It's *obviously* the Australasian College of Sports Physicians. http://www.acsp.org.au/ ;) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon
So everything will be Advantage I wont complain. I wonder if the AP prices will drop then? Mike Bushard, Jr Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ralph Fowler Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 2:53 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon I was told a couple of days ago that the regular SMs are going away soon. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gino A. Villarini Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 12:26 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon You can have the cake and eat it too!! Advantage AP to Classic SM can achieve 14 mbps to the Classic SM, not sustained, only burstable. -- 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/
Motorola membership (Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon)
On 9/28/06, Rick Harnish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If we can get Motorola to become a WISPA vendor member, we will gladly start a list here without those restrictions. How has Motorola been approached?Best,-- Dylan OliverPrimaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: Motorola membership (Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon)
Im not sure whether they have yet. I think they were last year but I dont recall right now. Anyone who is a valuable Motorola customer want to take this on? Rick Harnish President OnlyInternet Broadband Wireless, Inc. 260-827-2482 Founding Member of WISPA From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dylan Oliver Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:16 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Motorola membership (Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon) On 9/28/06, Rick Harnish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If we can get Motorola to become a WISPA vendor member, we will gladly start a list here without those restrictions. How has Motorola been approached? Best, -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: Motorola membership (Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon)
I will be in meetings with Motorola next week. Will see if can get done. What level did Alvarion commit to? Might help get them to make bigger outlay. Don Renner NetsurfUSA, Inc. 812-936-4514 [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Harnish Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 8:44 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: Motorola membership (Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon) Im not sure whether they have yet. I think they were last year but I dont recall right now. Anyone who is a valuable Motorola customer want to take this on? Rick Harnish President OnlyInternet Broadband Wireless, Inc. 260-827-2482 Founding Member of WISPA From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dylan Oliver Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:16 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Motorola membership (Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon) On 9/28/06, Rick Harnish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If we can get Motorola to become a WISPA vendor member, we will gladly start a list here without those restrictions. How has Motorola been approached? Best, -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: Motorola membership (Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon)
Just looked at the webpage to gather statistics like WISPA membership and mailing list subscription, but did not see it at http://www.wispa.org/?page_id=2. What audience will they reach by becoming a vendor member? The WISPA Vendor Members text in the left column should be a link to either section 7.6.B on the Dues/Elections page or, better, another page detailing the benefits of Vendor Membership. Have Alvarion, Optivon, and Deliberant all ponied up =$5k for advertising space on wispa.org? Are these the only Vendor Members?Best,-- Dylan OliverPrimaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: Motorola membership (Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon)
Partial hijack here. On a related subject, is there anyone at Motorola that is really good with WISPs. Someone who I can call and talk to as a Canopy user. Not a script reader. I admit I have never called them. I rely on vendors, and other WISPs for all Canopy related info and support. Moto is so big, I'm scared that I'd get the hold music for an hour and them some dude that I can't understand..Ok..what I want to know is what moto # do I call to talk to their Patrick Leary. :)*Patrick suddenly feels warm and fuzzy inside...* So I guess this isn't too much of a hijack. :) How do we contact their Patrick. After we know that we can talk to him about joining. Brian Dylan Oliver wrote: On 9/28/06, *Rick Harnish* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If we can get Motorola to become a WISPA vendor member, we will gladly start a list here without those restrictions. How has Motorola been approached? Best, -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: Motorola membership (Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon)
You might want to take this discussion over to the Member list. Dylan Oliver wrote: Just looked at the webpage to gather statistics like WISPA membership and mailing list subscription, but did not see it at http://www.wispa.org/?page_id=2. What audience will they reach by becoming a vendor member? The WISPA Vendor Members text in the left column should be a link to either section 7.6.B on the Dues/Elections page or, better, another page detailing the benefits of Vendor Membership. Have Alvarion, Optivon, and Deliberant all ponied up =$5k for advertising space on wispa.org http://wispa.org? Are these the only Vendor Members? Best, -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: Motorola membership (Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon)
I have a few phone numbers. The tech support has gotten better, but I only call them with Prizm/BAM problems. I really don't know that they have a Patrick but the area rep is helpful. He has always gotten me to the right person. Mike Rosedale Cell 847.722.1047 Mike Bushard, Jr Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Rohrbacher Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:20 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: Motorola membership (Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon) Partial hijack here. On a related subject, is there anyone at Motorola that is really good with WISPs. Someone who I can call and talk to as a Canopy user. Not a script reader. I admit I have never called them. I rely on vendors, and other WISPs for all Canopy related info and support. Moto is so big, I'm scared that I'd get the hold music for an hour and them some dude that I can't understand..Ok..what I want to know is what moto # do I call to talk to their Patrick Leary. :)*Patrick suddenly feels warm and fuzzy inside...* So I guess this isn't too much of a hijack. :) How do we contact their Patrick. After we know that we can talk to him about joining. Brian Dylan Oliver wrote: On 9/28/06, *Rick Harnish* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If we can get Motorola to become a WISPA vendor member, we will gladly start a list here without those restrictions. How has Motorola been approached? Best, -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: Motorola membership (Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon)
Dylan Oliver wrote: Just looked at the webpage to gather statistics like WISPA membership and mailing list subscription, but did not see it at http://www.wispa.org/?page_id=2. What audience will they reach by becoming a vendor member? The WISPA Vendor Members text in the left column should be a link to either section 7.6.B on the Dues/Elections page or, better, another page detailing the benefits of Vendor Membership. Have Alvarion, Optivon, and Deliberant all ponied up =$5k for advertising space on wispa.org http://wispa.org? Are these the only Vendor Members? I know these three are Vendor Members. I dunno what was ponied up. Brian -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon
a unit with a 60* pattern (Trango or Canopy). Just include the$50 for a reflector or stinger from http://www.wirelessbehive.com Based on the information from Mike, I could not use Canopy. In several areas, I have 4-5 towers located within 5 miles of each other how do I do that with Canopy? With Trango, I use a different channel for the sector pointing toward another tower (frequency planning and coordination is very important) and everything works great. Is there a solution for this with Canopy? This is where GPS sync comes in. You can point two different tower locations on the same frequency at each other and they will not interfere with each other. This is how it is possible to do a 6 AP cluster on one tower with only 3 non overlapping channels. Also, by using only a 10mhz spectrum per channel, Trango's channel 1 and channel 8 are actually outside the reach of Canopy and 802.11 (for the most part) and thus can almost always be used in a noisy environment. Remember with Canopy you generally don't have to avoid interference. Find the cleanest channel and 90% of the time you will be the few db louder then the noise that you need to make a viable link. Anthony Will Broadband Corp Travis Microserv Mike Bushard, Jr wrote: Well, so far as we can tell the only thing that can kill canopy, IS CANOPY. We have put it up against WaveRider, Alvarion, and 802.11b. They all fell of the face of the earth. We have 16 tower sites deployed, all 900Mhz and 2.4, over 1000 CPE and more on the way. (I realize there are many people bigger than us.) We use a mix of MTI Omni's, MTI or Tiltek 120deg Sectors (MTI for Horizontal and Tiltek for Vertical) and integrated 60deg sectors (I really wish someone would come out with a descent H-pol as I don't like the integrated antenna) with 900. Cyclone Omni's or 120deg sectors on 2.4. Here is what I have found with GPS Sourced Sync vs. Generate Sync: If you want channel reuse you need GPS sourced sync. If you have a tower more than 8 miles away, you need to use different channels no matter what, even with GPS sourced sync you still have speed of light issues from tower to tower. Can you Generate sync and deploy multiple AP's in a given area, yes. You just need to make sure you have Frequency separation. Does this mean I recommend it, NO. Also even with every site GPS Synced, you still can only put so many AP's in a given area be for you need to go to a different polarity. At least we know there will never be another 900Mhz based ISP in one of our towns. Also on a side note, I have never found a problem with 2.4, it is 900 that will give you problems, it just carries so far. If the noise floor was lower, and Canopy could run at -90 we would have coverage for a long ways. It seems like we can always pick up a AP at -80. YMMV. Mike Bushard, Jr Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 5:07 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon Patrick Leary wrote: I'm speaking about multipoint matt, not ptp. The dedicated ptp you are doing is by far the exception. Canopy is designed, built, and sold to be primarily a pmp system. I've never met or heard of a Canopy pmp network of any scale that did not require GPS. I'd be interested in further explanation on this topic. We have some Canopy pmp and haven't found the lack of GPS a problem. Granted we don't have a large amount of pmp, but I would certainly like to understand any future pain before we experience it. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon
Run Advantage AP's and Legacy SM's. With the Advantage AP's and legacy SM's you get the Latency, and High Priority Channel all the time, and can burst to full 2X Rate. If you need the full 2x Rate Sustained, buy an Advantage SM. To answer your question, yes the Advantage AP will deliver the full 14Mb Aggregate. Mike Bushard, Jr Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 11:51 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon Another quick question... If you are running a Canopy Advantage AP and you use regular Canopy SM's, can the AP still deliver the 14Mbps of bandwidth, or will it be limited to 7Mbps (like the SM's)? Trying to decide if I want to use Advantage SM's or just regular? Travis Microserv Anthony Will wrote: Well I have had 2.4ghz radio's link up at -89db (not very well mind you but...) so I don't know what to tell you other then Moto has traditionally understated there spec sheets. The GPS is what sets the timing for the AP's. The AP's coordinate the timing slots for all SM's registered to them. So how it works is that all AP's on channel 1 across the world all transmit at the same time, and all SM's synced to a AP on channel 1 with GPS timing from the AP listen at the same time. Distance is not relevant unless you are utilizing the feature set of the SM to retransmit a GPS sync pulse that it receives from and AP to a BH or AP. The lag that is introduced by having to transmit that pulse info across the wireless link to the SM retransmitting is the only time that distance can come into play. The application this is used for is for a cheap repeater system so that you dont have to have a GPS synchronizing device at every tower. /SM GPS --AP#1 / \ \SM (retransmitting GPS sync pulse) --AP#2 --SM (retransmitting GPS sync pulse) --AP#3 (this AP will be out of sync with AP#1) Basically the timing is measured in nano seconds so it takes to long for RF to transmit the data across the wireless links to continue to propagate the timing signal. But if you put a GPS sync generating device at AP#3 it would be in perfect time with AP#1 and close enough timing with AP#2 that they all would get along. One thing to keep in mind is if you are the only Canopy shop in the area you can have your AP's generate the sync pulse and avoid the cost of the GPS synchronizing items. Also again as for the distance statement. 6 AP's in a cluster sharing 3 channels have to be synced. believe me the messy antenna on the Canopy units dont have a good enough F/B ratio to not hear another AP 6 away from it. The two AP's that are back to back share the same channel so that when they transmit the SM's that are listening are as far away from each other as possible and thus reduce any chance of talking over each other. The largest benefit that GPS sync allows is to add additional capacity to area's by allowing for more towers to be in a smaller area without self interference. If long range rural deployments are the plan then GPS sync will only benefit you if you have competitors utilizing the same equipment and configuration in the area. So a Moto advantage cluster has about 84mb total (Classic Canopy would be 42mb) FTP bandwidth available to it. If more is needed you can place the towers with in a few miles and divide a cell into two micro cells each with a possible 84mb of total bandwidth for a total of 168mb serviced to a given area. One last note, GPS timing will not allow for two separate clusters of the same type ( two 2.4ghz clusters) to be on the same tower. I can't write out whats in my head on this getting a little late in the night but if you wanted to I could talk to you over the phone and explain it. Send me an email to anthonyw (at) broadband-mn.com and Ill give you my cell phone number or give you a call. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, First, the spec sheet on Motorola's website says -86 RSSI. What happens when you have more than 3 towers outside of the 8 mile range of GPS sync? The 2.4ghz signal will definately travel that far, causing self-interference, correct? Travis Microserv Anthony Will wrote: Answers in-line Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I'd like to go back to the specs on different radios just so I can compare for myself... Trango 2.4ghz: 5Mbps auto ratio 8 non-overlapping channels 10mhz spectrum per channel -90 Receive level 15 mile range (without a grid) External connector and dual-pol integrated antenna $879 AP (WISP price) $479 SU (WISP price) Canopy 2.4ghz (regular): 7Mbps fixed ratio 3 non-overlapping channels 20mhz spectrum per channel -86 Receive level 2.4 canopy has a -89 receive level 5 mile
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon
You can have the cake and eat it too!! Advantage AP to Classic SM can achieve 14 mbps to the Classic SM, not sustained, only burstable. Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 12:51 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon Another quick question... If you are running a Canopy Advantage AP and you use regular Canopy SM's, can the AP still deliver the 14Mbps of bandwidth, or will it be limited to 7Mbps (like the SM's)? Trying to decide if I want to use Advantage SM's or just regular? Travis Microserv Anthony Will wrote: Well I have had 2.4ghz radio's link up at -89db (not very well mind you but...) so I don't know what to tell you other then Moto has traditionally understated there spec sheets. The GPS is what sets the timing for the AP's. The AP's coordinate the timing slots for all SM's registered to them. So how it works is that all AP's on channel 1 across the world all transmit at the same time, and all SM's synced to a AP on channel 1 with GPS timing from the AP listen at the same time. Distance is not relevant unless you are utilizing the feature set of the SM to retransmit a GPS sync pulse that it receives from and AP to a BH or AP. The lag that is introduced by having to transmit that pulse info across the wireless link to the SM retransmitting is the only time that distance can come into play. The application this is used for is for a cheap repeater system so that you dont have to have a GPS synchronizing device at every tower. /SM GPS --AP#1 / \ \SM (retransmitting GPS sync pulse) --AP#2 --SM (retransmitting GPS sync pulse) --AP#3 (this AP will be out of sync with AP#1) Basically the timing is measured in nano seconds so it takes to long for RF to transmit the data across the wireless links to continue to propagate the timing signal. But if you put a GPS sync generating device at AP#3 it would be in perfect time with AP#1 and close enough timing with AP#2 that they all would get along. One thing to keep in mind is if you are the only Canopy shop in the area you can have your AP's generate the sync pulse and avoid the cost of the GPS synchronizing items. Also again as for the distance statement. 6 AP's in a cluster sharing 3 channels have to be synced. believe me the messy antenna on the Canopy units dont have a good enough F/B ratio to not hear another AP 6 away from it. The two AP's that are back to back share the same channel so that when they transmit the SM's that are listening are as far away from each other as possible and thus reduce any chance of talking over each other. The largest benefit that GPS sync allows is to add additional capacity to area's by allowing for more towers to be in a smaller area without self interference. If long range rural deployments are the plan then GPS sync will only benefit you if you have competitors utilizing the same equipment and configuration in the area. So a Moto advantage cluster has about 84mb total (Classic Canopy would be 42mb) FTP bandwidth available to it. If more is needed you can place the towers with in a few miles and divide a cell into two micro cells each with a possible 84mb of total bandwidth for a total of 168mb serviced to a given area. One last note, GPS timing will not allow for two separate clusters of the same type ( two 2.4ghz clusters) to be on the same tower. I can't write out whats in my head on this getting a little late in the night but if you wanted to I could talk to you over the phone and explain it. Send me an email to anthonyw (at) broadband-mn.com and Ill give you my cell phone number or give you a call. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, First, the spec sheet on Motorola's website says -86 RSSI. What happens when you have more than 3 towers outside of the 8 mile range of GPS sync? The 2.4ghz signal will definately travel that far, causing self-interference, correct? Travis Microserv Anthony Will wrote: Answers in-line Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I'd like to go back to the specs on different radios just so I can compare for myself... Trango 2.4ghz: 5Mbps auto ratio 8 non-overlapping channels 10mhz spectrum per channel -90 Receive level 15 mile range (without a grid) External connector and dual-pol integrated antenna $879 AP (WISP price) $479 SU (WISP price) Canopy 2.4ghz (regular): 7Mbps fixed ratio 3 non-overlapping channels 20mhz spectrum per channel -86 Receive level 2.4 canopy has a -89 receive level 5 mile range (without a dish) $902 AP (reseller price online) $490 SU (reseller price online) I am guessing your quoting
Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon
Someone posted a 3rd party GPS sync module (around $300 I think?). Can someone share that info with me again, please? :) Travis Microserv Mike Bushard, Jr wrote: Run Advantage AP's and Legacy SM's. With the Advantage AP's and legacy SM's you get the Latency, and High Priority Channel all the time, and can burst to full 2X Rate. If you need the full 2x Rate Sustained, buy an Advantage SM. To answer your question, yes the Advantage AP will deliver the full 14Mb Aggregate. Mike Bushard, Jr Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 11:51 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon Another quick question... If you are running a Canopy Advantage AP and you use regular Canopy SM's, can the AP still deliver the 14Mbps of bandwidth, or will it be limited to 7Mbps (like the SM's)? Trying to decide if I want to use Advantage SM's or just regular? Travis Microserv Anthony Will wrote: Well I have had 2.4ghz radio's link up at -89db (not very well mind you but...) so I don't know what to tell you other then Moto has traditionally understated there spec sheets. The GPS is what sets the timing for the AP's. The AP's coordinate the timing slots for all SM's registered to them. So how it works is that all AP's on channel 1 across the world all transmit at the same time, and all SM's synced to a AP on channel 1 with GPS timing from the AP listen at the same time. Distance is not relevant unless you are utilizing the feature set of the SM to retransmit a GPS sync pulse that it receives from and AP to a BH or AP. The lag that is introduced by having to transmit that pulse info across the wireless link to the SM retransmitting is the only time that distance can come into play. The application this is used for is for a cheap repeater system so that you dont have to have a GPS synchronizing device at every tower. /SM GPS --AP#1 / \ \SM (retransmitting GPS sync pulse) --AP#2 --SM (retransmitting GPS sync pulse) --AP#3 (this AP will be out of sync with AP#1) Basically the timing is measured in nano seconds so it takes to long for RF to transmit the data across the wireless links to continue to propagate the timing signal. But if you put a GPS sync generating device at AP#3 it would be in perfect time with AP#1 and close enough timing with AP#2 that they all would get along. One thing to keep in mind is if you are the only Canopy shop in the area you can have your AP's generate the sync pulse and avoid the cost of the GPS synchronizing items. Also again as for the distance statement. 6 AP's in a cluster sharing 3 channels have to be synced. believe me the messy antenna on the Canopy units dont have a good enough F/B ratio to not hear another AP 6 away from it. The two AP's that are back to back share the same channel so that when they transmit the SM's that are listening are as far away from each other as possible and thus reduce any chance of talking over each other. The largest benefit that GPS sync allows is to add additional capacity to area's by allowing for more towers to be in a smaller area without self interference. If long range rural deployments are the plan then GPS sync will only benefit you if you have competitors utilizing the same equipment and configuration in the area. So a Moto advantage cluster has about 84mb total (Classic Canopy would be 42mb) FTP bandwidth available to it. If more is needed you can place the towers with in a few miles and divide a cell into two micro cells each with a possible 84mb of total bandwidth for a total of 168mb serviced to a given area. One last note, GPS timing will not allow for two separate clusters of the same type ( two 2.4ghz clusters) to be on the same tower. I can't write out whats in my head on this getting a little late in the night but if you wanted to I could talk to you over the phone and explain it. Send me an email to anthonyw (at) broadband-mn.com and Ill give you my cell phone number or give you a call. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, First, the spec sheet on Motorola's website says -86 RSSI. What happens when you have more than 3 towers outside of the 8 mile range of GPS sync? The 2.4ghz signal will definately travel that far, causing self-interference, correct? Travis Microserv Anthony Will wrote: Answers in-line Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I'd like to go back to the specs on different radios just so I can compare for myself... Trango 2.4ghz: 5Mbps auto ratio 8 non-overlapping channels 10mhz spectrum per channel -90 Receive level 15 mile range (without a grid) External connector and dual-pol integrated antenna $879 AP (WISP price) $479 SU (WISP price) Canopy 2.4ghz (regular): 7Mbps fixed ratio
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon
Sync Pipe from Forrest. I have three of them that just came in today. www.packetflux.com Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 5:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon Someone posted a 3rd party GPS sync module (around $300 I think?). Can someone share that info with me again, please? :) Travis Microserv Mike Bushard, Jr wrote: Run Advantage AP's and Legacy SM's. With the Advantage AP's and legacy SM's you get the Latency, and High Priority Channel all the time, and can burst to full 2X Rate. If you need the full 2x Rate Sustained, buy an Advantage SM. To answer your question, yes the Advantage AP will deliver the full 14Mb Aggregate. Mike Bushard, Jr Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 11:51 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon Another quick question... If you are running a Canopy Advantage AP and you use regular Canopy SM's, can the AP still deliver the 14Mbps of bandwidth, or will it be limited to 7Mbps (like the SM's)? Trying to decide if I want to use Advantage SM's or just regular? Travis Microserv Anthony Will wrote: Well I have had 2.4ghz radio's link up at -89db (not very well mind you but...) so I don't know what to tell you other then Moto has traditionally understated there spec sheets. The GPS is what sets the timing for the AP's. The AP's coordinate the timing slots for all SM's registered to them. So how it works is that all AP's on channel 1 across the world all transmit at the same time, and all SM's synced to a AP on channel 1 with GPS timing from the AP listen at the same time. Distance is not relevant unless you are utilizing the feature set of the SM to retransmit a GPS sync pulse that it receives from and AP to a BH or AP. The lag that is introduced by having to transmit that pulse info across the wireless link to the SM retransmitting is the only time that distance can come into play. The application this is used for is for a cheap repeater system so that you dont have to have a GPS synchronizing device at every tower. /SM GPS --AP#1 / \ \SM (retransmitting GPS sync pulse) --AP#2 --SM (retransmitting GPS sync pulse) --AP#3 (this AP will be out of sync with AP#1) Basically the timing is measured in nano seconds so it takes to long for RF to transmit the data across the wireless links to continue to propagate the timing signal. But if you put a GPS sync generating device at AP#3 it would be in perfect time with AP#1 and close enough timing with AP#2 that they all would get along. One thing to keep in mind is if you are the only Canopy shop in the area you can have your AP's generate the sync pulse and avoid the cost of the GPS synchronizing items. Also again as for the distance statement. 6 AP's in a cluster sharing 3 channels have to be synced. believe me the messy antenna on the Canopy units dont have a good enough F/B ratio to not hear another AP 6 away from it. The two AP's that are back to back share the same channel so that when they transmit the SM's that are listening are as far away from each other as possible and thus reduce any chance of talking over each other. The largest benefit that GPS sync allows is to add additional capacity to area's by allowing for more towers to be in a smaller area without self interference. If long range rural deployments are the plan then GPS sync will only benefit you if you have competitors utilizing the same equipment and configuration in the area. So a Moto advantage cluster has about 84mb total (Classic Canopy would be 42mb) FTP bandwidth available to it. If more is needed you can place the towers with in a few miles and divide a cell into two micro cells each with a possible 84mb of total bandwidth for a total of 168mb serviced to a given area. One last note, GPS timing will not allow for two separate clusters of the same type ( two 2.4ghz clusters) to be on the same tower. I can't write out whats in my head on this getting a little late in the night but if you wanted to I could talk to you over the phone and explain it. Send me an email to anthonyw (at) broadband-mn.com and Ill give you my cell phone number or give you a call. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, First, the spec sheet on Motorola's website says -86 RSSI. What happens when you have more than 3 towers outside of the 8 mile range of GPS sync? The 2.4ghz signal will definately travel that far, causing self-interference, correct? Travis Microserv Anthony Will wrote: Answers in-line Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I'd like to go back to the specs on different radios
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon
www.packetflux.com Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 6:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon Someone posted a 3rd party GPS sync module (around $300 I think?). Can someone share that info with me again, please? :) Travis Microserv Mike Bushard, Jr wrote: Run Advantage AP's and Legacy SM's. With the Advantage AP's and legacy SM's you get the Latency, and High Priority Channel all the time, and can burst to full 2X Rate. If you need the full 2x Rate Sustained, buy an Advantage SM. To answer your question, yes the Advantage AP will deliver the full 14Mb Aggregate. Mike Bushard, Jr Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 11:51 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon Another quick question... If you are running a Canopy Advantage AP and you use regular Canopy SM's, can the AP still deliver the 14Mbps of bandwidth, or will it be limited to 7Mbps (like the SM's)? Trying to decide if I want to use Advantage SM's or just regular? Travis Microserv Anthony Will wrote: Well I have had 2.4ghz radio's link up at -89db (not very well mind you but...) so I don't know what to tell you other then Moto has traditionally understated there spec sheets. The GPS is what sets the timing for the AP's. The AP's coordinate the timing slots for all SM's registered to them. So how it works is that all AP's on channel 1 across the world all transmit at the same time, and all SM's synced to a AP on channel 1 with GPS timing from the AP listen at the same time. Distance is not relevant unless you are utilizing the feature set of the SM to retransmit a GPS sync pulse that it receives from and AP to a BH or AP. The lag that is introduced by having to transmit that pulse info across the wireless link to the SM retransmitting is the only time that distance can come into play. The application this is used for is for a cheap repeater system so that you dont have to have a GPS synchronizing device at every tower. /SM GPS --AP#1 / \ \SM (retransmitting GPS sync pulse) --AP#2 --SM (retransmitting GPS sync pulse) --AP#3 (this AP will be out of sync with AP#1) Basically the timing is measured in nano seconds so it takes to long for RF to transmit the data across the wireless links to continue to propagate the timing signal. But if you put a GPS sync generating device at AP#3 it would be in perfect time with AP#1 and close enough timing with AP#2 that they all would get along. One thing to keep in mind is if you are the only Canopy shop in the area you can have your AP's generate the sync pulse and avoid the cost of the GPS synchronizing items. Also again as for the distance statement. 6 AP's in a cluster sharing 3 channels have to be synced. believe me the messy antenna on the Canopy units dont have a good enough F/B ratio to not hear another AP 6 away from it. The two AP's that are back to back share the same channel so that when they transmit the SM's that are listening are as far away from each other as possible and thus reduce any chance of talking over each other. The largest benefit that GPS sync allows is to add additional capacity to area's by allowing for more towers to be in a smaller area without self interference. If long range rural deployments are the plan then GPS sync will only benefit you if you have competitors utilizing the same equipment and configuration in the area. So a Moto advantage cluster has about 84mb total (Classic Canopy would be 42mb) FTP bandwidth available to it. If more is needed you can place the towers with in a few miles and divide a cell into two micro cells each with a possible 84mb of total bandwidth for a total of 168mb serviced to a given area. One last note, GPS timing will not allow for two separate clusters of the same type ( two 2.4ghz clusters) to be on the same tower. I can't write out whats in my head on this getting a little late in the night but if you wanted to I could talk to you over the phone and explain it. Send me an email to anthonyw (at) broadband-mn.com and Ill give you my cell phone number or give you a call. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, First, the spec sheet on Motorola's website says -86 RSSI. What happens when you have more than 3 towers outside of the 8 mile range of GPS sync? The 2.4ghz signal will definately travel that far, causing self-interference, correct? Travis Microserv Anthony Will wrote: Answers in-line Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I'd like to go back
Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon
Is there a Canopy mailing list that is active? Travis Microserv Mike Bushard, Jr wrote: Here is a crude picture of one of our areas. Aside from the one site everything works great. 18 Canopy 900 Sectors in a 6 mile radius. Plus 2 Vertical that are not in the image. Need less to say that town is pretty well smoked. Mike Bushard, Jr Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Anthony Will Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 1:12 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon Well I have had 2.4ghz radio's link up at -89db (not very well mind you but...) so I don't know what to tell you other then Moto has traditionally understated there spec sheets. The GPS is what sets the timing for the AP's. The AP's coordinate the timing slots for all SM's registered to them. So how it works is that all AP's on channel 1 across the world all transmit at the same time, and all SM's synced to a AP on channel 1 with GPS timing from the AP listen at the same time. Distance is not relevant unless you are utilizing the feature set of the SM to retransmit a GPS sync pulse that it receives from and AP to a BH or AP. The lag that is introduced by having to transmit that pulse info across the wireless link to the SM retransmitting is the only time that distance can come into play. The application this is used for is for a cheap repeater system so that you dont have to have a GPS synchronizing device at every tower. /SM GPS --AP#1 / \ \SM (retransmitting GPS sync pulse) --AP#2 --SM (retransmitting GPS sync pulse) --AP#3 (this AP will be out of sync with AP#1) Basically the timing is measured in nano seconds so it takes to long for RF to transmit the data across the wireless links to continue to propagate the timing signal. But if you put a GPS sync generating device at AP#3 it would be in perfect time with AP#1 and close enough timing with AP#2 that they all would get along. One thing to keep in mind is if you are the only Canopy shop in the area you can have your AP's generate the sync pulse and avoid the cost of the GPS synchronizing items. Also again as for the distance statement. 6 AP's in a cluster sharing 3 channels have to be synced. believe me the messy antenna on the Canopy units dont have a good enough F/B ratio to not hear another AP 6" away from it. The two AP's that are back to back share the same channel so that when they transmit the SM's that are listening are as far away from each other as possible and thus reduce any chance of talking over each other. The largest benefit that GPS sync allows is to add additional capacity to area's by allowing for more towers to be in a smaller area without self interference. If long range rural deployments are the plan then GPS sync will only benefit you if you have competitors utilizing the same equipment and configuration in the area. So a Moto advantage cluster has about 84mb total (Classic Canopy would be 42mb) FTP bandwidth available to it. If more is needed you can place the towers with in a few miles and divide a cell into two micro cells each with a possible 84mb of total bandwidth for a total of 168mb serviced to a given area. One last note, GPS timing will not allow for two separate clusters of the same type ( two 2.4ghz clusters) to be on the same tower. I can't write out whats in my head on this getting a little late in the night but if you wanted to I could talk to you over the phone and explain it. Send me an email to anthonyw (at) broadband-mn.com and Ill give you my cell phone number or give you a call. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, First, the spec sheet on Motorola's website says -86 RSSI. What happens when you have more than 3 towers outside of the 8 mile range of GPS sync? The 2.4ghz signal will definately travel that far, causing self-interference, correct? Travis Microserv Anthony Will wrote: Answers in-line Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I'd like to go back to the specs on different radios just so I can compare for myself... Trango 2.4ghz: 5Mbps auto ratio 8 non-overlapping channels 10mhz spectrum per channel -90 Receive level 15 mile range (without a grid) External connector and dual-pol integrated antenna $879 AP (WISP price) $479 SU (WISP price) Canopy 2.4ghz (regular): 7Mbps fixed ratio 3 non-overlapping channels 20mhz spectrum per channel -86 Receive level 2.4 canopy has a -89 receive level 5 mile range (without a dish) $902 AP (reseller price online) $490 SU (reseller price online) I am guessing your quoting single prices here. Now that maybe viable for this discussion but realistically if a WISP is not financially able to purchase in 25 packs they l
Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon
part-15.org but I seem to remember that they removed access to the archives unless you are a member. bullit might have changed that since. Anthony Travis Johnson wrote: Is there a Canopy mailing list that is active? Travis Microserv Mike Bushard, Jr wrote: Here is a crude picture of one of our areas. Aside from the one site everything works great. 18 Canopy 900 Sectors in a 6 mile radius. Plus 2 Vertical that are not in the image. Need less to say that town is pretty well smoked. Mike Bushard, Jr Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anthony Will Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 1:12 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon Well I have had 2.4ghz radio's link up at -89db (not very well mind you but...) so I don't know what to tell you other then Moto has traditionally understated there spec sheets. The GPS is what sets the timing for the AP's. The AP's coordinate the timing slots for all SM's registered to them. So how it works is that all AP's on channel 1 across the world all transmit at the same time, and all SM's synced to a AP on channel 1 with GPS timing from the AP listen at the same time. Distance is not relevant unless you are utilizing the feature set of the SM to retransmit a GPS sync pulse that it receives from and AP to a BH or AP. The lag that is introduced by having to transmit that pulse info across the wireless link to the SM retransmitting is the only time that distance can come into play. The application this is used for is for a cheap repeater system so that you dont have to have a GPS synchronizing device at every tower. /SM GPS --AP#1 / \ \SM (retransmitting GPS sync pulse) --AP#2 --SM (retransmitting GPS sync pulse) --AP#3 (this AP will be out of sync with AP#1) Basically the timing is measured in nano seconds so it takes to long for RF to transmit the data across the wireless links to continue to propagate the timing signal. But if you put a GPS sync generating device at AP#3 it would be in perfect time with AP#1 and close enough timing with AP#2 that they all would get along. One thing to keep in mind is if you are the only Canopy shop in the area you can have your AP's generate the sync pulse and avoid the cost of the GPS synchronizing items. Also again as for the distance statement. 6 AP's in a cluster sharing 3 channels have to be synced. believe me the messy antenna on the Canopy units dont have a good enough F/B ratio to not hear another AP 6 away from it. The two AP's that are back to back share the same channel so that when they transmit the SM's that are listening are as far away from each other as possible and thus reduce any chance of talking over each other. The largest benefit that GPS sync allows is to add additional capacity to area's by allowing for more towers to be in a smaller area without self interference. If long range rural deployments are the plan then GPS sync will only benefit you if you have competitors utilizing the same equipment and configuration in the area. So a Moto advantage cluster has about 84mb total (Classic Canopy would be 42mb) FTP bandwidth available to it. If more is needed you can place the towers with in a few miles and divide a cell into two micro cells each with a possible 84mb of total bandwidth for a total of 168mb serviced to a given area. One last note, GPS timing will not allow for two separate clusters of the same type ( two 2.4ghz clusters) to be on the same tower. I can't write out whats in my head on this getting a little late in the night but if you wanted to I could talk to you over the phone and explain it. Send me an email to anthonyw (at) broadband-mn.com and Ill give you my cell phone number or give you a call. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, First, the spec sheet on Motorola's website says -86 RSSI. What happens when you have more than 3 towers outside of the 8 mile range of GPS sync? The 2.4ghz signal will definately travel that far, causing self-interference, correct? Travis Microserv Anthony Will wrote: Answers in-line Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I'd like to go back to the specs on different radios just so I can compare for myself... Trango 2.4ghz: 5Mbps auto ratio 8 non-overlapping channels 10mhz spectrum per channel -90 Receive level 15 mile range (without a grid) External connector and dual-pol integrated antenna $879 AP (WISP price) $479 SU (WISP price) Canopy 2.4ghz (regular): 7Mbps fixed ratio 3 non-overlapping channels 20mhz spectrum per channel -86 Receive level 2.4 canopy has a -89 receive level 5 mile range (without a dish) $902 AP (reseller price online) $490 SU (reseller price online) I am guessing your quoting single prices here. Now that maybe viable
Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon
? With Trango, I use a different channel for the sector pointing toward another tower (frequency planning and coordination is very important) and everything works great. Is there a solution for this with Canopy? This is where GPS sync comes in. You can point two different tower locations on the same frequency at each other and they will not interfere with each other. This is how it is possible to do a 6 AP cluster on one tower with only 3 non overlapping channels. Also, by using only a 10mhz spectrum per channel, Trango's channel 1 and channel 8 are actually outside the reach of Canopy and 802.11 (for the most part) and thus can almost always be used in a noisy environment. Remember with Canopy you generally don't have to avoid interference. Find the cleanest channel and 90% of the time you will be the few db louder then the noise that you need to make a viable link. Anthony Will Broadband Corp Travis Microserv Mike Bushard, Jr wrote: Well, so far as we can tell the only thing that can kill canopy, IS CANOPY. We have put it up against WaveRider, Alvarion, and 802.11b. They all fell of the face of the earth. We have 16 tower sites deployed, all 900Mhz and 2.4, over 1000 CPE and more on the way. (I realize there are many people bigger than us.) We use a mix of MTI Omni's, MTI or Tiltek 120deg Sectors (MTI for Horizontal and Tiltek for Vertical) and integrated 60deg sectors (I really wish someone would come out with a descent H-pol as I don't like the integrated antenna) with 900. Cyclone Omni's or 120deg sectors on 2.4. Here is what I have found with GPS Sourced Sync vs. Generate Sync: If you want channel reuse you need GPS sourced sync. If you have a tower more than 8 miles away, you need to use different channels no matter what, even with GPS sourced sync you still have speed of light issues from tower to tower. Can you Generate sync and deploy multiple AP's in a given area, yes. You just need to make sure you have Frequency separation. Does this mean I recommend it, NO. Also even with every site GPS Synced, you still can only put so many AP's in a given area be for you need to go to a different polarity. At least we know there will never be another 900Mhz based ISP in one of our towns. Also on a side note, I have never found a problem with 2.4, it is 900 that will give you problems, it just carries so far. If the noise floor was lower, and Canopy could run at -90 we would have coverage for a long ways. It seems like we can always pick up a AP at -80. YMMV. Mike Bushard, Jr Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 5:07 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon Patrick Leary wrote: I'm speaking about multipoint matt, not ptp. The dedicated ptp you are doing is by far the exception. Canopy is designed, built, and sold to be primarily a pmp system. I've never met or heard of a Canopy pmp network of any scale that did not require GPS. I'd be interested in further explanation on this topic. We have some Canopy pmp and haven't found the lack of GPS a problem. Granted we don't have a large amount of pmp, but I would certainly like to understand any future pain before we experience it. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon
Here is a crude picture of one of our areas. Aside from the one site everything works great. 18 Canopy 900 Sectors in a 6 mile radius. Plus 2 Vertical that are not in the image. Need less to say that town is pretty well smoked. Mike Bushard, Jr Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anthony Will Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 1:12 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon Well I have had 2.4ghz radio's link up at -89db (not very well mind you but...) so I don't know what to tell you other then Moto has traditionally understated there spec sheets. The GPS is what sets the timing for the AP's. The AP's coordinate the timing slots for all SM's registered to them. So how it works is that all AP's on channel 1 across the world all transmit at the same time, and all SM's synced to a AP on channel 1 with GPS timing from the AP listen at the same time. Distance is not relevant unless you are utilizing the feature set of the SM to retransmit a GPS sync pulse that it receives from and AP to a BH or AP. The lag that is introduced by having to transmit that pulse info across the wireless link to the SM retransmitting is the only time that distance can come into play. The application this is used for is for a cheap repeater system so that you dont have to have a GPS synchronizing device at every tower. /SM GPS --AP#1 / \ \SM (retransmitting GPS sync pulse) --AP#2 --SM (retransmitting GPS sync pulse) --AP#3 (this AP will be out of sync with AP#1) Basically the timing is measured in nano seconds so it takes to long for RF to transmit the data across the wireless links to continue to propagate the timing signal. But if you put a GPS sync generating device at AP#3 it would be in perfect time with AP#1 and close enough timing with AP#2 that they all would get along. One thing to keep in mind is if you are the only Canopy shop in the area you can have your AP's generate the sync pulse and avoid the cost of the GPS synchronizing items. Also again as for the distance statement. 6 AP's in a cluster sharing 3 channels have to be synced. believe me the messy antenna on the Canopy units dont have a good enough F/B ratio to not hear another AP 6 away from it. The two AP's that are back to back share the same channel so that when they transmit the SM's that are listening are as far away from each other as possible and thus reduce any chance of talking over each other. The largest benefit that GPS sync allows is to add additional capacity to area's by allowing for more towers to be in a smaller area without self interference. If long range rural deployments are the plan then GPS sync will only benefit you if you have competitors utilizing the same equipment and configuration in the area. So a Moto advantage cluster has about 84mb total (Classic Canopy would be 42mb) FTP bandwidth available to it. If more is needed you can place the towers with in a few miles and divide a cell into two micro cells each with a possible 84mb of total bandwidth for a total of 168mb serviced to a given area. One last note, GPS timing will not allow for two separate clusters of the same type ( two 2.4ghz clusters) to be on the same tower. I can't write out whats in my head on this getting a little late in the night but if you wanted to I could talk to you over the phone and explain it. Send me an email to anthonyw (at) broadband-mn.com and Ill give you my cell phone number or give you a call. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, First, the spec sheet on Motorola's website says -86 RSSI. What happens when you have more than 3 towers outside of the 8 mile range of GPS sync? The 2.4ghz signal will definately travel that far, causing self-interference, correct? Travis Microserv Anthony Will wrote: Answers in-line Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I'd like to go back to the specs on different radios just so I can compare for myself... Trango 2.4ghz: 5Mbps auto ratio 8 non-overlapping channels 10mhz spectrum per channel -90 Receive level 15 mile range (without a grid) External connector and dual-pol integrated antenna $879 AP (WISP price) $479 SU (WISP price) Canopy 2.4ghz (regular): 7Mbps fixed ratio 3 non-overlapping channels 20mhz spectrum per channel -86 Receive level 2.4 canopy has a -89 receive level 5 mile range (without a dish) $902 AP (reseller price online) $490 SU (reseller price online) I am guessing your quoting single prices here. Now that maybe viable for this discussion but realistically if a WISP is not financially able to purchase in 25 packs they likely are very underfunded. So that the information is available a 25 pack of the Classic 2.4 ghz Canopy units is $6709 so if you break that down to single price that is about
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon
We have never saw a problem with 2.4 self interfering. Only 900Mhz, and that is easily fixed. Mike Bushard, Jr Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 11:40 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon Hi, First, the spec sheet on Motorola's website says -86 RSSI. What happens when you have more than 3 towers outside of the 8 mile range of GPS sync? The 2.4ghz signal will definately travel that far, causing self-interference, correct? Travis Microserv Anthony Will wrote: Answers in-line Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I'd like to go back to the specs on different radios just so I can compare for myself.. Trango 2.4ghz: 5Mbps auto ratio 8 non-overlapping channels 10mhz spectrum per channel -90 Receive level 15 mile range (without a grid) External connector and dual-pol integrated antenna $879 AP (WISP price) $479 SU (WISP price) Canopy 2.4ghz (regular): 7Mbps fixed ratio 3 non-overlapping channels 20mhz spectrum per channel -86 Receive level 2.4 canopy has a -89 receive level 5 mile range (without a dish) $902 AP (reseller price online) $490 SU (reseller price online) I am guessing your quoting single prices here. Now that maybe viable for this discussion but realistically if a WISP is not financially able to purchase in 25 packs they likely are very underfunded. So that the information is available a 25 pack of the Classic 2.4 ghz Canopy units is $6709 so if you break that down to single price that is about $269ea + $50 for reflector for a total of $319ea. http://www.doubleradius.com It is possible to get them cheaper then this but you will have to deal with co-op's or ebay.com Also I would never install a unit with a 60* pattern (Trango or Canopy). Just include the$50 for a reflector or stinger from http://www.wirelessbehive.com Based on the information from Mike, I could not use Canopy. In several areas, I have 4-5 towers located within 5 miles of each other how do I do that with Canopy? With Trango, I use a different channel for the sector pointing toward another tower (frequency planning and coordination is very important) and everything works great. Is there a solution for this with Canopy? This is where GPS sync comes in. You can point two different tower locations on the same frequency at each other and they will not interfere with each other. This is how it is possible to do a 6 AP cluster on one tower with only 3 non overlapping channels. Also, by using only a 10mhz spectrum per channel, Trango's channel 1 and channel 8 are actually outside the reach of Canopy and 802.11 (for the most part) and thus can almost always be used in a noisy environment. Remember with Canopy you generally don't have to avoid interference. Find the cleanest channel and 90% of the time you will be the few db louder then the noise that you need to make a viable link. Anthony Will Broadband Corp Travis Microserv Mike Bushard, Jr wrote: Well, so far as we can tell the only thing that can kill canopy, IS CANOPY. We have put it up against WaveRider, Alvarion, and 802.11b. They all fell of the face of the earth. We have 16 tower sites deployed, all 900Mhz and 2.4, over 1000 CPE and more on the way. (I realize there are many people bigger than us.) We use a mix of MTI Omni's, MTI or Tiltek 120deg Sectors (MTI for Horizontal and Tiltek for Vertical) and integrated 60deg sectors (I really wish someone would come out with a descent H-pol as I don't like the integrated antenna) with 900. Cyclone Omni's or 120deg sectors on 2.4. Here is what I have found with GPS Sourced Sync vs. Generate Sync: If you want channel reuse you need GPS sourced sync. If you have a tower more than 8 miles away, you need to use different channels no matter what, even with GPS sourced sync you still have speed of light issues from tower to tower. Can you Generate sync and deploy multiple AP's in a given area, yes. You just need to make sure you have Frequency separation. Does this mean I recommend it, NO. Also even with every site GPS Synced, you still can only put so many AP's in a given area be for you need to go to a different polarity. At least we know there will never be another 900Mhz based ISP in one of our towns. Also on a side note, I have never found a problem with 2.4, it is 900 that will give you problems, it just carries so far. If the noise floor was lower, and Canopy could run at -90 we would have coverage for a long ways. It seems like we can always pick up a AP at -80. YMMV. Mike Bushard, Jr Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 5:07 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon
Jon, For sure I'm all over GPS for all licensed (world of small channels) and when there is a small amount of spectrum to work with in UL. For example, in the coming 3650MHz band, GPS should be a must for PMP. Same with scaled 900 (we offer it there). It is just not needed with VL. What for? It already gives massive capacity without any re-use. Even with GPS and re-use I do not think Canopy can get close to the amount of capacity VL can offer. Frankly, even if we had it for VL no one would buy it. No argument from me on the scheduled MAC front, except to the extent that in UL it needs to come with good interference mitigation (not talking about self-inflicted interference) techniques to make it useful. Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jon Langeler Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 10:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon Hey Patrick, GPS...there's many reasons and it's not a canopy vs alvarion debate from my standpoint, more so a scheduled mac(canopy, wimax, 3G...) vs unscheduled(wifi, VL, currently Trango). I'd predict that as wisp education progresses, they will realize the power of scheduled mac and GPS support. By then maybe the rest of the BreezeMAX code will have made way to the VL engineers and everyone can be happy :-) Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Patrick Leary wrote: Jon, Why is that the case? You really think GPS on Canopy is some cool feature? Canopy must have GPS to function. Without it, it kills itself. It is all to prevent self-inflicted interference (remember, Canopy does not even have ATPC) and to allow for channel re-use. Other systems, like VL, do not need it. It provides far more capacity than Canopy, so it does not need to re-use channels and with basic channel planning you don't have issues with self-interference. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(192). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(42). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] vendor specs
- Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 8:32 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Brad, Software controlled dual polarity might be nice. Not sure why you consistently harp on us though since no one else has it either other than your longtime preferred vendor. mks: I have Trango and over a dozen other brands of gear. That software polarity thing is the bomb. I can fix interference issues, almost any of them, from the office! Very very nice feature. I am not as convinced about your complaint about RSSI. Is it just used to RSSI like being used to feet in stead of meters. But also, isn't RSSI less sophisticated and a less useful number than SNR since it is only an indication of receive signal without discounting noise? SNR provides a more accurate representation of wanted signal since it discounts for unwanted noise. mks: rssi is critical to me. I make do without it but I hate to. It's impossible to troubleshoot the signal level that should be there We can calculate the value if we have it. SNR also helps, but I'd rather have rssi and noise in dB. If you want to do like lucent did 100 years ago and give us rssi, noise, AND snr in db AND/OR as a graph, that was very good stuff. mks: FYI, I've found that most radios massively misreport the true noise levels. Not sure of your complaint about the RJ45. No one else remarks about it and we don't have issues with water intrusion. In other words, it works well. If the opening was enlarged you increase the potential for water intrusion. mks: If you are gonna use a standard connector, use a standard connection. Following the color code? Yes, as an old cabling guy, I would agree. But I am pleased to note that one is really running out of things to harp about when one continually highlights this a major deficiency. So now that I have responded here to your public mail, will you please admit that even if the VL came to life and saved your kid from a flood you complain that it was not fast enough and that it ripped the kid's clothes. I wish some day you'd accept that your customer chose VL and you should take the opportunity to learn about it instead of still trying to make it fail so you can get them to switch to Trango. Even the best radios will have room for improvement and every decent brand should have something special that differentiates it. You work so hard to find fault you miss opportunities to become proficient in more than one brand. So accept our invitations to allow engineer visits and accept our invitations to be trained. Know what I mean? Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] vendor specs
Again, Patrick, it's a troubleshooting too. If we have poor link quality but good signal, that's usually interference. If we have poor signal but good quality that can mean a bad antenna, tree in the path, multipath etc. Both are important. Marlon(509) 982-2181 Equipment sales(408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp!64.146.146.12 (net meeting)www.odessaoffice.com/wirelesswww.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary To: WISPA General List Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 9:36 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs I should have also noted that per the info below, most Alvarion operators simply have a policy that they will only connect subscribers for whom a minimum number of the green LEDs will fire and hold. For example, having 4 for of the 8 green LEDs light should get you a link with the best mod level, but 5 will do that plus give you a margin of about 8dB. It is a simple thing once you get used to it, which does not take long. Remember, there is no standard way to show these things, but Id argue that what we show is more complete and real in terms of link quality. Just showing RSSI would dump it down, wouldnt it? Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick LearySent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 9:24 AMTo: WISPA General ListSubject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Right, but the LED bar on the CPE can be used to do that. I mean, isn't SNR more complete than just RSSI, meaning if your SNR is good than the RSSI is by default good. Anyway, I have never heard of any moderately experienced VL user say the units did not convey enough info to easily establish a link and understand the quality of the connection. Consider that with the CPE VL radio the LEDs will show: WLAN link light- · Solid Green Unit is associated with an AU, no wireless link activity · Blinking Green Data received or transmitted on the wireless link, blinking rate is proportional to wireless traffic rate · Off Wireless link is disabled Status light · Solid Green Power is available and self-test passed · Blinking Amber Testing (not ready for operation) · Red Self-test failed fatal error Ethernet light · Solid Green Ethernet link between the indoor and outdoor units is detected, no activity · Blinking Green Ethernet connectivity is OK, with traffic on the port. Blinking rate proportional to traffic rate · Red No Ethernet connectivity between the indoor and outdoor units SNR bar · Red LED: Signal is too low (SNR4 dB) · Orange LED: Signal is too high (SNR 50 dB) · 8 green LEDs: Quality of the received signal (green LEDs translate per below) LED 1 (red) is On - Signal is too low (SNR 4 dB) LED 2 (green) is On - SNR 4 dB LEDs 2 to 3 (green) are On - SNR 8 dB LEDs 2 to 4 (green) are On - SNR 13 dB LEDs 2 to 5 (green) are On - SNR 19 dB LEDs 2 to 6 (green) are On - SNR 26 dB LEDs 2 to 7 (green) are On - SNR 31 dB LEDs 2 to 8 (green) are On - SNR 38 dB LEDs 2 to 9 (green) are On - SNR 44 dB LEDs 2 to 9 (green) and 10 (orange) are On Signal is too high (SNR 50 dB) Mod level : Sensitivity : Min. SNR (this chart for 20MHz channel) 1 : -89 dBm : 6 dB 2 : -88 dBm : 7 dB 3 : -86 dBm : 9 dB 4 : -84 dBm : 11 dB 5 : -81 dBm : 14 dB 6 : -77 dBm : 18 dB 7 : -73 dBm : 22 dB 8 : -71 dBm : 23 dB Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of G. villariniSent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 8:48 AMTo: wireless@wispa.orgSubject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Patrick, Rssi is very important to determine if a link is properly aligned and its achieving its link budget. Altough we dont use alvarion(yet), we are currently researching backhaul options and the way we comission ptp links here is that we run the calcs on radio mobile and spreedsheet to determine the link budget in advance to implementation. Snr wont help much there... Gino -Original Message- From: "Patrick Leary"[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 9/24/06 11:32:47 AM To: "WISPA General List"wireless@wispa.org Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Brad, Software controlled dual polarity might be nice. Not sure why you consistently harp on us though since no one else has it either other than your longtime preferred vendor. I am not as
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon
Patrick, ditto on the 3650 band. However the reality is that self and external interference in the UL world is all too common. You say UL bands or at least VL doesn't need GPS capability because of so much capacity. If you want I can get you a list of wifi/trango/etc.-to-Canopy 'converts' that will tell you otherwise. Licensed carriers use GPS to greatly diminish what we experience as common day interference problems. IMO I can't blame the FCC for not giving more spectrum than they have as we've already trashed what we've been given. Lastly, what Moto did was brought GPS sync to the UL world however as standard option and in very economical form factor, not expensive chassis and such. If you haven't already, get your VL guys with your WIMAX guys and you could have a clear winner down the road! :) Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Quoting Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Jon, For sure I'm all over GPS for all licensed (world of small channels) and when there is a small amount of spectrum to work with in UL. For example, in the coming 3650MHz band, GPS should be a must for PMP. Same with scaled 900 (we offer it there). It is just not needed with VL. What for? It already gives massive capacity without any re-use. Even with GPS and re-use I do not think Canopy can get close to the amount of capacity VL can offer. Frankly, even if we had it for VL no one would buy it. No argument from me on the scheduled MAC front, except to the extent that in UL it needs to come with good interference mitigation (not talking about self-inflicted interference) techniques to make it useful. Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jon Langeler Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 10:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon Hey Patrick, GPS...there's many reasons and it's not a canopy vs alvarion debate from my standpoint, more so a scheduled mac(canopy, wimax, 3G...) vs unscheduled(wifi, VL, currently Trango). I'd predict that as wisp education progresses, they will realize the power of scheduled mac and GPS support. By then maybe the rest of the BreezeMAX code will have made way to the VL engineers and everyone can be happy :-) Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Patrick Leary wrote: Jon, Why is that the case? You really think GPS on Canopy is some cool feature? Canopy must have GPS to function. Without it, it kills itself. It is all to prevent self-inflicted interference (remember, Canopy does not even have ATPC) and to allow for channel re-use. Other systems, like VL, do not need it. It provides far more capacity than Canopy, so it does not need to re-use channels and with basic channel planning you don't have issues with self-interference. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(192). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(42). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] vendor specs
I'm sure most know that was a 'play' and basically secured Moto's position to sell WIMAX gear to the 2nd largest 2.5GHz spectrum holder. It would have been interesting if Alvarion had been in their place...not sure if you guys have that kind of change sitting around. Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Patrick Leary wrote: Speaking of Clearwire, folks here are aware that Motorola now owns NextNet, the hardware supplier to Clearwire (that once was part of Clearwire, at least in ownership terms), right? The purchase was IN ADDITION to the $300M investment Motorola made into Clearwire http://telephonyonline.com/wireless/finance/motorola_clearwire_nextnet_0 70606/ To give you an idea of how much that Moto investment is relative to your Canopy businessthat is more than Canopy makes for Motorola worldwide over 2 years. Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 7:57 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs Ahhh... there's always a catch... so now Motorola has your customer's address and can use that for their own marketing, etc. without you ever knowing. They could possibly even sell the list to someone (ClearWire) down the road and you would never know. Travis Microserv Anthony Will wrote: -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs
I have always questioned why Motorola bought Nextnet, Nexnet it's a proprietary system with no upgrade path to Wimax... But my theory is based on them buying Nexnet to clear them out and offer Clearwire a Wimax upgrade path using the Wi4 Wimax plataform ... Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jon Langeler Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 2:00 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs I'm sure most know that was a 'play' and basically secured Moto's position to sell WIMAX gear to the 2nd largest 2.5GHz spectrum holder. It would have been interesting if Alvarion had been in their place...not sure if you guys have that kind of change sitting around. Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Patrick Leary wrote: Speaking of Clearwire, folks here are aware that Motorola now owns NextNet, the hardware supplier to Clearwire (that once was part of Clearwire, at least in ownership terms), right? The purchase was IN ADDITION to the $300M investment Motorola made into Clearwire http://telephonyonline.com/wireless/finance/motorola_clearwire_nextnet_0 70606/ To give you an idea of how much that Moto investment is relative to your Canopy businessthat is more than Canopy makes for Motorola worldwide over 2 years. Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 7:57 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs Ahhh... there's always a catch... so now Motorola has your customer's address and can use that for their own marketing, etc. without you ever knowing. They could possibly even sell the list to someone (ClearWire) down the road and you would never know. Travis Microserv Anthony Will wrote: -- 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] vendor specs
Gino, I have to admit Alvarion has some work to do for the smaller wisp's out there. Patrick will have his hands full on this one. But for wisps buying 100 packs on a bi or monthly plan the pricing below just doesn't seem like such a deal breaker anymore when you add up the feature sets. For a few more months on an ROI model you can buy Alvarion. The whole point of this thread has been the fact that many (including Scriv) have found out Trango still wins, because Trango is less expensive or Canopy for that matter. may not exactly be the case. The ongoing costs of truck rolls, tech support issues, and shorter coverage modeling can kill an ROI model faster than the cost of cpe. Add in voip coverage modeling and the dynamics change once again. I have seen several advanced studies of building data/voip wireless networks where BreezeAccess VL used half the tower/base station sites (therefore less leases and operational expenses), gave twice the throughput per cell site, and can handle more than 10X's the amount of voip traffic. Throw in the addition of maintaining twice the amount of gear and once again we come out ahead. This was really driven home on a few backhauling for mesh projects with drive testing of different technologies and the findings REALLY blew me away. No kidding folks the differences are like night and day and you'll be hearing about some of these networks this year. I first saw the differences several years ago where a project out for bid was installing 2,500 cpe's in a seven square mile area with trees and rolling hills. With a $125 premium on cpe the total network costs with operational expenses was less expensive than a Canopy solution and we gave 100% coverage. Alvarion CPE installation was eave mount on 1 square mile centers vs high rooftop with more towers needed (again saving the service provider money). Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 6:44 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Trango Atlas CPE with dish $250? Canopy with dish $275 Canopy Advantage Cluster: 6 Ap's @ $1500 each = $9k (you can start your pop with a fcc certified omni unit for $2.7k and evolve to a full sector later) CMM Micro for Power and Sync = $1.5k *optional BAM - Prizm = $2k *optional The CMM Micro is optional component for GPS Sync, you can achieve sync among the cluster with 10 ft of cat 5 and 6 rj11 connectors BAM - Prizm is a NMS for Management but is NOT a required component, you can manage all your settings from the web interface on each unit including bandwidth and such. I would only recommend the Prizm NMS for big WISP's (200+ units ) About the Third Party: There are a couple on 3rd party improvements for canopy, almost all were created on a cost savings stand point, Example: Motorola reflector dish for 10 mile + links $100 Beehive Wireless reflector dish for 10 mile links $49.95 (fcc certified) Motorola CMM GPS Sync System $1.5k PacketFLux GPS Sync $300 Any other questions ? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 4:53 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs So what is the onesy-twosy price of a Trango Atlas with an extended range antenna? What is the price for a Canopy Advantage CPE with extended range? I have plenty of data I've found, but there seems to be some wide discrepancy here among you folks. How about total cost for a Canopy cluster with the BAM, GPS synch, and other little extra things you need for it to be complete? Also, I've heard a number of you talk about availability of third party improvements like it is a benefit of the Canopy system. Seriously, isn't that more a reflection of the glaring gaps in Canopy that have led smart WISP entrepreneurs to capitalize? Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 1:13 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs Trango is no where near $400 for Atlas Foxes. Trango's Atlas Fox's distance without dish is just about the same as the standard Canopy CPE (same DBI antenna). Remember that Trango lists retail on their site to protest the WISP. Low volume WISP special pricing is granted to any WISP. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Anthony Will [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 11:17 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs Your numbers are a bit off on the canopy and when i looked on the trango site it looks more in the range of $400 per unit at 30 pack pricing
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs
Price is always a factor, but we would gladly pay a premium for VL with the sorely needed HARDWARE improvements: (1) Dual Polarity via software (2) Dual Band 5.3GHz and 5.8GHz These are time tested proven valuable HARDWARE features that VL is lacking. With these features added to VL there would not be a comparable product on the market other than home-brew's like StarOS MikroTik. Without these HARDWARE improvements the VL product is too susceptible to noise and therefore not a viable solution for committed rate business offerings. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Larson Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 9:31 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Gino, I have to admit Alvarion has some work to do for the smaller wisp's out there. Patrick will have his hands full on this one. But for wisps buying 100 packs on a bi or monthly plan the pricing below just doesn't seem like such a deal breaker anymore when you add up the feature sets. For a few more months on an ROI model you can buy Alvarion. The whole point of this thread has been the fact that many (including Scriv) have found out Trango still wins, because Trango is less expensive or Canopy for that matter. may not exactly be the case. The ongoing costs of truck rolls, tech support issues, and shorter coverage modeling can kill an ROI model faster than the cost of cpe. Add in voip coverage modeling and the dynamics change once again. I have seen several advanced studies of building data/voip wireless networks where BreezeAccess VL used half the tower/base station sites (therefore less leases and operational expenses), gave twice the throughput per cell site, and can handle more than 10X's the amount of voip traffic. Throw in the addition of maintaining twice the amount of gear and once again we come out ahead. This was really driven home on a few backhauling for mesh projects with drive testing of different technologies and the findings REALLY blew me away. No kidding folks the differences are like night and day and you'll be hearing about some of these networks this year. I first saw the differences several years ago where a project out for bid was installing 2,500 cpe's in a seven square mile area with trees and rolling hills. With a $125 premium on cpe the total network costs with operational expenses was less expensive than a Canopy solution and we gave 100% coverage. Alvarion CPE installation was eave mount on 1 square mile centers vs high rooftop with more towers needed (again saving the service provider money). Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 6:44 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Trango Atlas CPE with dish $250? Canopy with dish $275 Canopy Advantage Cluster: 6 Ap's @ $1500 each = $9k (you can start your pop with a fcc certified omni unit for $2.7k and evolve to a full sector later) CMM Micro for Power and Sync = $1.5k *optional BAM - Prizm = $2k *optional The CMM Micro is optional component for GPS Sync, you can achieve sync among the cluster with 10 ft of cat 5 and 6 rj11 connectors BAM - Prizm is a NMS for Management but is NOT a required component, you can manage all your settings from the web interface on each unit including bandwidth and such. I would only recommend the Prizm NMS for big WISP's (200+ units ) About the Third Party: There are a couple on 3rd party improvements for canopy, almost all were created on a cost savings stand point, Example: Motorola reflector dish for 10 mile + links $100 Beehive Wireless reflector dish for 10 mile links $49.95 (fcc certified) Motorola CMM GPS Sync System $1.5k PacketFLux GPS Sync $300 Any other questions ? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 4:53 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs So what is the onesy-twosy price of a Trango Atlas with an extended range antenna? What is the price for a Canopy Advantage CPE with extended range? I have plenty of data I've found, but there seems to be some wide discrepancy here among you folks. How about total cost for a Canopy cluster with the BAM, GPS synch, and other little extra things you need for it to be complete? Also, I've heard a number of you talk about availability of third party improvements like it is a benefit of the Canopy system. Seriously, isn't that more a reflection of the glaring gaps in Canopy that have led smart WISP entrepreneurs to capitalize? Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Sunday, September 24
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs
From my understanding the business is up for grabs. Moto got a foot hold on current cell sites and deployments. It remains to be seen what happens to new cell/city rollouts. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 2:00 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs I'm sure most know that was a 'play' and basically secured Moto's position to sell WIMAX gear to the 2nd largest 2.5GHz spectrum holder. It would have been interesting if Alvarion had been in their place...not sure if you guys have that kind of change sitting around. Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Patrick Leary wrote: Speaking of Clearwire, folks here are aware that Motorola now owns NextNet, the hardware supplier to Clearwire (that once was part of Clearwire, at least in ownership terms), right? The purchase was IN ADDITION to the $300M investment Motorola made into Clearwire http://telephonyonline.com/wireless/finance/motorola_clearwire_nextnet_0 70606/ To give you an idea of how much that Moto investment is relative to your Canopy businessthat is more than Canopy makes for Motorola worldwide over 2 years. Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 7:57 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs Ahhh... there's always a catch... so now Motorola has your customer's address and can use that for their own marketing, etc. without you ever knowing. They could possibly even sell the list to someone (ClearWire) down the road and you would never know. Travis Microserv Anthony Will wrote: -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(191). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(43). -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] vendor specs
inline Brad Belton wrote: Price is always a factor, but we would gladly pay a premium for VL with the sorely needed HARDWARE improvements: (1) Dual Polarity via software (2) Dual Band 5.3GHz and 5.8GHz I know trango does dual polarity, but who does dual band? These are time tested proven valuable HARDWARE features that VL is lacking. With these features added to VL there would not be a comparable product on the market other than home-brew's like StarOS MikroTik. Without these HARDWARE improvements the VL product is too susceptible to noise and therefore not a viable solution for committed rate business offerings. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Larson Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 9:31 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Gino, I have to admit Alvarion has some work to do for the smaller wisp's out there. Patrick will have his hands full on this one. But for wisps buying 100 packs on a bi or monthly plan the pricing below just doesn't seem like such a deal breaker anymore when you add up the feature sets. For a few more months on an ROI model you can buy Alvarion. The whole point of this thread has been the fact that many (including Scriv) have found out Trango still wins, because Trango is less expensive or Canopy for that matter. may not exactly be the case. The ongoing costs of truck rolls, tech support issues, and shorter coverage modeling can kill an ROI model faster than the cost of cpe. Add in voip coverage modeling and the dynamics change once again. I have seen several advanced studies of building data/voip wireless networks where BreezeAccess VL used half the tower/base station sites (therefore less leases and operational expenses), gave twice the throughput per cell site, and can handle more than 10X's the amount of voip traffic. Throw in the addition of maintaining twice the amount of gear and once again we come out ahead. This was really driven home on a few backhauling for mesh projects with drive testing of different technologies and the findings REALLY blew me away. No kidding folks the differences are like night and day and you'll be hearing about some of these networks this year. I first saw the differences several years ago where a project out for bid was installing 2,500 cpe's in a seven square mile area with trees and rolling hills. With a $125 premium on cpe the total network costs with operational expenses was less expensive than a Canopy solution and we gave 100% coverage. Alvarion CPE installation was eave mount on 1 square mile centers vs high rooftop with more towers needed (again saving the service provider money). Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 6:44 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Trango Atlas CPE with dish $250? Canopy with dish $275 Canopy Advantage Cluster: 6 Ap's @ $1500 each = $9k (you can start your pop with a fcc certified omni unit for $2.7k and evolve to a full sector later) CMM Micro for Power and Sync = $1.5k *optional BAM - Prizm = $2k *optional The CMM Micro is optional component for GPS Sync, you can achieve sync among the cluster with 10 ft of cat 5 and 6 rj11 connectors BAM - Prizm is a NMS for Management but is NOT a required component, you can manage all your settings from the web interface on each unit including bandwidth and such. I would only recommend the Prizm NMS for big WISP's (200+ units ) About the Third Party: There are a couple on 3rd party improvements for canopy, almost all were created on a cost savings stand point, Example: Motorola reflector dish for 10 mile + links $100 Beehive Wireless reflector dish for 10 mile links $49.95 (fcc certified) Motorola CMM GPS Sync System $1.5k PacketFLux GPS Sync $300 Any other questions ? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 4:53 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs So what is the onesy-twosy price of a Trango Atlas with an extended range antenna? What is the price for a Canopy Advantage CPE with extended range? I have plenty of data I've found, but there seems to be some wide discrepancy here among you folks. How about total cost for a Canopy cluster with the BAM, GPS synch, and other little extra things you need for it to be complete? Also, I've heard a number of you talk about availability of third party improvements like it is a benefit of the Canopy system. Seriously, isn't that more a reflection of the glaring gaps in Canopy that have led smart WISP entrepreneurs to capitalize? Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs
Brad Belton, Respectfully, there are 100's of wisp's proving you wrong. OFDM in UL has its place and making blanket statements to the contrary makes little sense. There is great debate in the industry of what value Dual Polarity via software offers an OFDM UL system. There is also considerable data on the fact that dual frequency solutions are not optimal. You keep harping on these same two issues yet we have a substantial installed base that grows by the day. There will never be a perfect solution for everyone and I understand that VL may not be a fit for your current situation. BreezeAccess VL is a viable solution that is being heavily deployed and we continue to replace dual polarity via software and dual band 5.3/5.8 solutions with great results (and they speak for themselves). I think this thread was started by one such replacement, an upgrade from Trango that got the provider faster data rates, better support, etc. etc. They'll be many more testimonials in the coming 12 months. Scriv said it best, It's like the difference between night and day. We have zero downtime on our backhaul now. We were getting countless reports of downtime from our network monitoring system before. Now it just works. I don't think I can overstate the impact Alvarion VL has had on my network. Oh and lets not forget the fact that Scriv is probably sleeping better at night without the outages he used to have. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 11:30 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Price is always a factor, but we would gladly pay a premium for VL with the sorely needed HARDWARE improvements: (1) Dual Polarity via software (2) Dual Band 5.3GHz and 5.8GHz These are time tested proven valuable HARDWARE features that VL is lacking. With these features added to VL there would not be a comparable product on the market other than home-brew's like StarOS MikroTik. Without these HARDWARE improvements the VL product is too susceptible to noise and therefore not a viable solution for committed rate business offerings. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Larson Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 9:31 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Gino, I have to admit Alvarion has some work to do for the smaller wisp's out there. Patrick will have his hands full on this one. But for wisps buying 100 packs on a bi or monthly plan the pricing below just doesn't seem like such a deal breaker anymore when you add up the feature sets. For a few more months on an ROI model you can buy Alvarion. The whole point of this thread has been the fact that many (including Scriv) have found out Trango still wins, because Trango is less expensive or Canopy for that matter. may not exactly be the case. The ongoing costs of truck rolls, tech support issues, and shorter coverage modeling can kill an ROI model faster than the cost of cpe. Add in voip coverage modeling and the dynamics change once again. I have seen several advanced studies of building data/voip wireless networks where BreezeAccess VL used half the tower/base station sites (therefore less leases and operational expenses), gave twice the throughput per cell site, and can handle more than 10X's the amount of voip traffic. Throw in the addition of maintaining twice the amount of gear and once again we come out ahead. This was really driven home on a few backhauling for mesh projects with drive testing of different technologies and the findings REALLY blew me away. No kidding folks the differences are like night and day and you'll be hearing about some of these networks this year. I first saw the differences several years ago where a project out for bid was installing 2,500 cpe's in a seven square mile area with trees and rolling hills. With a $125 premium on cpe the total network costs with operational expenses was less expensive than a Canopy solution and we gave 100% coverage. Alvarion CPE installation was eave mount on 1 square mile centers vs high rooftop with more towers needed (again saving the service provider money). Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 6:44 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Trango Atlas CPE with dish $250? Canopy with dish $275 Canopy Advantage Cluster: 6 Ap's @ $1500 each = $9k (you can start your pop with a fcc certified omni unit for $2.7k and evolve to a full sector later) CMM Micro for Power and Sync = $1.5k *optional BAM - Prizm = $2k *optional The CMM Micro is optional component for GPS Sync, you can achieve sync among the cluster with 10 ft of cat 5 and 6 rj11 connectors BAM - Prizm is a NMS for Management but is NOT a required component, you can manage all your settings from the web interface on each unit including bandwidth
Re: [WISPA] vendor specs
For the record, my use of Alvarion is to feed high-end business customers and towers only at this time. I still cannot make a business case for Alvarion for SoHo and Resi. I do not plan to make that move until I see Alvarion has a way to make that pay. A 24 to 36 month ROI does not work for resi and soho. If it does not pay in 6 to 12 months then you are building yourself a dead business plan. Is Alvarion going to make a move to fill this need? Here is the breakdown as I see it. It costs me an average of $350.00 to put a SoHo or Resi customer online. I have about $275.00 average equipment cost and average of $75.00 install costs total. The systems I use work for the job intended. I am open for suggestions on why Alvarion would be a better fit for soho or resi but I do not see that at this time. For backhaul and enterprise customers Alvarion is the product to use without a doubt. Scriv Brad Larson wrote: Gino, I have to admit Alvarion has some work to do for the smaller wisp's out there. Patrick will have his hands full on this one. But for wisps buying 100 packs on a bi or monthly plan the pricing below just doesn't seem like such a deal breaker anymore when you add up the feature sets. For a few more months on an ROI model you can buy Alvarion. The whole point of this thread has been the fact that many (including Scriv) have found out Trango still wins, because Trango is less expensive or Canopy for that matter. may not exactly be the case. The ongoing costs of truck rolls, tech support issues, and shorter coverage modeling can kill an ROI model faster than the cost of cpe. Add in voip coverage modeling and the dynamics change once again. I have seen several advanced studies of building data/voip wireless networks where BreezeAccess VL used half the tower/base station sites (therefore less leases and operational expenses), gave twice the throughput per cell site, and can handle more than 10X's the amount of voip traffic. Throw in the addition of maintaining twice the amount of gear and once again we come out ahead. This was really driven home on a few backhauling for mesh projects with drive testing of different technologies and the findings REALLY blew me away. No kidding folks the differences are like night and day and you'll be hearing about some of these networks this year. I first saw the differences several years ago where a project out for bid was installing 2,500 cpe's in a seven square mile area with trees and rolling hills. With a $125 premium on cpe the total network costs with operational expenses was less expensive than a Canopy solution and we gave 100% coverage. Alvarion CPE installation was eave mount on 1 square mile centers vs high rooftop with more towers needed (again saving the service provider money). Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 6:44 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Trango Atlas CPE with dish $250? Canopy with dish $275 Canopy Advantage Cluster: 6 Ap's @ $1500 each = $9k (you can start your pop with a fcc certified omni unit for $2.7k and evolve to a full sector later) CMM Micro for Power and Sync = $1.5k *optional BAM - Prizm = $2k *optional The CMM Micro is optional component for GPS Sync, you can achieve sync among the cluster with 10 ft of cat 5 and 6 rj11 connectors BAM - Prizm is a NMS for Management but is NOT a required component, you can manage all your settings from the web interface on each unit including bandwidth and such. I would only recommend the Prizm NMS for big WISP's (200+ units ) About the Third Party: There are a couple on 3rd party improvements for canopy, almost all were created on a cost savings stand point, Example: Motorola reflector dish for 10 mile + links $100 Beehive Wireless reflector dish for 10 mile links $49.95 (fcc certified) Motorola CMM GPS Sync System $1.5k PacketFLux GPS Sync $300 Any other questions ? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 4:53 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs So what is the onesy-twosy price of a Trango Atlas with an extended range antenna? What is the price for a Canopy Advantage CPE with extended range? I have plenty of data I've found, but there seems to be some wide discrepancy here among you folks. How about total cost for a Canopy cluster with the BAM, GPS synch, and other little extra things you need for it to be complete? Also, I've heard a number of you talk about availability of third party improvements like it is a benefit of the Canopy system. Seriously, isn't that more a reflection of the glaring gaps in Canopy that have led smart WISP entrepreneurs to capitalize? Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs
Hello Brad, I think you are missing the point of the thread here. The point is to offer up constructive criticism of the VL product and how end users feel it could be improved upon. Are you saying adding a RSSI reading, adding dual polarity and adding dual band ability would not further improve the VL product? I think you are sorely mistaken. Certainly the VL product is working for thousands of end users. Where in any of my posts do I claim it is not? However, clearly a product that auto-rates itself down to a slower speed in the face of noise is not a product that we can use to support committed rate clients. Sure, we can fudge it for a short time and if the VL offered software polarity software band agility fix the problem fairly quickly. With the current VL product we are forced to truck roll to every client site and rotate polarity or in the event of an internal SU have to replace it with a horizontal solution. That simply isn't an option for us, but maybe other operations find the truck rolls enjoyable...grin The operators given to me by Alvarion as references using VL clearly state on their websites they are offering up to bandwidth packages. Not committed rate packages as we do. This is not to disparage them in any way...many of the references are many times larger than us and I applaud their success, however our target market is different than theirs. I want to use the VL product as it can offer the additional capacity we need, but without a few basic hardware features I don't see it as a fit for us. Again, that's what discussion is for...I'm here to discuss improvements I'd like to see in the VL product. What is wrong with that? Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Larson Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 10:50 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Brad Belton, Respectfully, there are 100's of wisp's proving you wrong. OFDM in UL has its place and making blanket statements to the contrary makes little sense. There is great debate in the industry of what value Dual Polarity via software offers an OFDM UL system. There is also considerable data on the fact that dual frequency solutions are not optimal. You keep harping on these same two issues yet we have a substantial installed base that grows by the day. There will never be a perfect solution for everyone and I understand that VL may not be a fit for your current situation. BreezeAccess VL is a viable solution that is being heavily deployed and we continue to replace dual polarity via software and dual band 5.3/5.8 solutions with great results (and they speak for themselves). I think this thread was started by one such replacement, an upgrade from Trango that got the provider faster data rates, better support, etc. etc. They'll be many more testimonials in the coming 12 months. Scriv said it best, It's like the difference between night and day. We have zero downtime on our backhaul now. We were getting countless reports of downtime from our network monitoring system before. Now it just works. I don't think I can overstate the impact Alvarion VL has had on my network. Oh and lets not forget the fact that Scriv is probably sleeping better at night without the outages he used to have. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 11:30 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Price is always a factor, but we would gladly pay a premium for VL with the sorely needed HARDWARE improvements: (1) Dual Polarity via software (2) Dual Band 5.3GHz and 5.8GHz These are time tested proven valuable HARDWARE features that VL is lacking. With these features added to VL there would not be a comparable product on the market other than home-brew's like StarOS MikroTik. Without these HARDWARE improvements the VL product is too susceptible to noise and therefore not a viable solution for committed rate business offerings. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Larson Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 9:31 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Gino, I have to admit Alvarion has some work to do for the smaller wisp's out there. Patrick will have his hands full on this one. But for wisps buying 100 packs on a bi or monthly plan the pricing below just doesn't seem like such a deal breaker anymore when you add up the feature sets. For a few more months on an ROI model you can buy Alvarion. The whole point of this thread has been the fact that many (including Scriv) have found out Trango still wins, because Trango is less expensive or Canopy for that matter. may not exactly be the case. The ongoing costs of truck rolls, tech support issues, and shorter coverage modeling can kill an ROI model faster than the cost of cpe. Add in voip coverage modeling
Re: [WISPA] vendor specs
I think maybe this thread is getting unproductive. Let's either move on to other vendor specific issues that are new or move on to another thread. Scriv Brad Larson wrote: Brad Belton, Respectfully, there are 100's of wisp's proving you wrong. OFDM in UL has its place and making blanket statements to the contrary makes little sense. There is great debate in the industry of what value Dual Polarity via software offers an OFDM UL system. There is also considerable data on the fact that dual frequency solutions are not optimal. You keep harping on these same two issues yet we have a substantial installed base that grows by the day. There will never be a perfect solution for everyone and I understand that VL may not be a fit for your current situation. BreezeAccess VL is a viable solution that is being heavily deployed and we continue to replace dual polarity via software and dual band 5.3/5.8 solutions with great results (and they speak for themselves). I think this thread was started by one such replacement, an upgrade from Trango that got the provider faster data rates, better support, etc. etc. They'll be many more testimonials in the coming 12 months. Scriv said it best, It's like the difference between night and day. We have zero downtime on our backhaul now. We were getting countless reports of downtime from our network monitoring system before. Now it just works. I don't think I can overstate the impact Alvarion VL has had on my network. Oh and lets not forget the fact that Scriv is probably sleeping better at night without the outages he used to have. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 11:30 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Price is always a factor, but we would gladly pay a premium for VL with the sorely needed HARDWARE improvements: (1) Dual Polarity via software (2) Dual Band 5.3GHz and 5.8GHz These are time tested proven valuable HARDWARE features that VL is lacking. With these features added to VL there would not be a comparable product on the market other than home-brew's like StarOS MikroTik. Without these HARDWARE improvements the VL product is too susceptible to noise and therefore not a viable solution for committed rate business offerings. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Larson Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 9:31 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Gino, I have to admit Alvarion has some work to do for the smaller wisp's out there. Patrick will have his hands full on this one. But for wisps buying 100 packs on a bi or monthly plan the pricing below just doesn't seem like such a deal breaker anymore when you add up the feature sets. For a few more months on an ROI model you can buy Alvarion. The whole point of this thread has been the fact that many (including Scriv) have found out Trango still wins, because Trango is less expensive or Canopy for that matter. may not exactly be the case. The ongoing costs of truck rolls, tech support issues, and shorter coverage modeling can kill an ROI model faster than the cost of cpe. Add in voip coverage modeling and the dynamics change once again. I have seen several advanced studies of building data/voip wireless networks where BreezeAccess VL used half the tower/base station sites (therefore less leases and operational expenses), gave twice the throughput per cell site, and can handle more than 10X's the amount of voip traffic. Throw in the addition of maintaining twice the amount of gear and once again we come out ahead. This was really driven home on a few backhauling for mesh projects with drive testing of different technologies and the findings REALLY blew me away. No kidding folks the differences are like night and day and you'll be hearing about some of these networks this year. I first saw the differences several years ago where a project out for bid was installing 2,500 cpe's in a seven square mile area with trees and rolling hills. With a $125 premium on cpe the total network costs with operational expenses was less expensive than a Canopy solution and we gave 100% coverage. Alvarion CPE installation was eave mount on 1 square mile centers vs high rooftop with more towers needed (again saving the service provider money). Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 6:44 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Trango Atlas CPE with dish $250? Canopy with dish $275 Canopy Advantage Cluster: 6 Ap's @ $1500 each = $9k (you can start your pop with a fcc certified omni unit for $2.7k and evolve to a full sector later) CMM Micro for Power and Sync = $1.5k *optional BAM - Prizm = $2k *optional The CMM Micro is optional component for GPS Sync, you can achieve sync among the cluster with 10 ft of cat 5 and 6
Re: [WISPA] vendor specs
Man, that must be nice! I've got residential customers that get all bent out of shape when their tests drop below one meg, either way. We have resi customers that get 3+ megs. BOTH ways. sigh. I'm in the wrong dang market out here! But what the heck, we also get recommended by many of the computer shops, college IT guys etc. And we've got a few more loans to pay off then we'll start making some good money too. Here's the part that's funniest to me. We're still doing it all (250 dialup subs, 50 fiber to the home, and around 325 wireless subs) with 1.75 people! Sure I pay more than I'd like to people like Butch and Keith to take care of my network. But I don't pay them for sitting around either. Once we get the debt paid off we'll be looking at a nearly 50% margin! Gotta love a business model like that. 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: Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 1:03 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Travis, WE provide Symetrical Business service with Canopy, why you couldn't ? A Regular AP has 7 Mbps if you split 75/25 that translates to : 5.25 / 1.75 Why can you sell a 512/512 over that type of AP split ? We use Advantage and have 10/4 MBps of capacity. My biggest Symetrical Plan is 3 Mbps, any other Customer that needs 5 , 6 10 symetrical gets a dedicated ptp link ... Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 12:11 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs The biggest reason we use Trango is because we sell our wireless service as symmetrical. Even on the residential level, if they purchase 512k they get 512k down and 512k up. So, if I use Canopy, I have to do a 50/50 split, which means even the Advantage product only provides 7Mbps of usable bandwidth. I would estimate 15% of our new signups for wireless are because of the symmetrical speed (even though 99% of them never use it). Another 15% comes from offering a real static IP address. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: Gino A. Villarini wrote: GPS sync is extra $$. Of course you can also just string sync cables between radios for free. True, but this is truly what makes canopy works and you have nice 3rd party options like www.lastmilegear.com and www.packetflux.com for the gps sync units that start @ less than $300 for a 4 port Sync unit Thanks for the reference to third party sync devices. I am not at all happy with the CMM. I looked at the devices from the respective vendors you shared. While they do look more in line with our needs than the CMM I was wondering if you have seen any third party sync devices that are rack mount and can handle 10+ radios. In fact, handling 24 radios would be awesome for us. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] vendor specs
Patrick, At this point, our company has made the decision that the loss in performance is not worth the benefits I agree that a wider spectrum product has RF trade offs compared to designed for a narrower band, when done via a simplistic design, and I understand Alvarion's position not to compromise optimal RF. What one is not realizing is that in order to support Dual Freq, it does not need to compromise RF integrity, with a clever Electric engineer's design. The fact is, the CHIP already supports it. A clever designer could easilly create seperate circuits internally that applied appropriate filters based on which freq was selected. Sure it costs a few dollars more, but when you buy a premium radio, what's a few more dollars? The facts are, having seperate model's means more different gear to stock, per VAN. When you buy a $500 radio thats not that big of a deal, but it is when you are paying $3000 a link. The truth is, Alvarion could easilly design their gear as 1 shell, that got flashed based on what freq and purpose you wanted the radio for. I believe Alvarion's reasons not to support Dual Freq are marketing/sales reasons, not technical. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 4:42 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs There are arguments against dual band support, as we have discussed before, though you ridicule our sincere reasoning and call it BS (which is why I am cautious about discussing these things with you in public). As I said to you, our RD folks tell me that RF components that span a broad frequency range have poorer performance than those designed for more narrow frequency ranges. I don't have a Ph.D in EE or other science disciplines, so I'm not going to argue with them. And as I have further explained, that poorer edge performance may or may not be worth giving up to get the benefit of dual band. That part is an economic question, not a technical one. At this point, our company has made the decision that the loss in performance is not worth the benefits. And yes, our RD DO tend to be RF purists (another thing you ridicule). That reality has its good and bad points. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 12:24 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Agreed, VL does have more niche features and some of those can be the sole reason VL makes the cut and other products do not. As you know VLAN support was the key feature in this particular case, but simply placing a CPE router on site will also fill that need. I'm a believer in the VL product, but there are currently a few too many basic pitfalls with the product. If I didn't care I wouldn't be posting about the VL. Let's face it this is some of the best exposure a manufacturer can ask for: users expressing improvements they would like to see implemented. The improvement requests here aren't without merit. Dual polarity and dual band capability are good ideas. There isn't any argument against it, so why not implement it? I guarantee it will result in additional VL sales. Trango has many features that VL does not currently offer in addition to the extremely important Dual Polarity ability: (1) Rx Threshold to maintain full payload capacity in noisy areas (2) Far fewer commands that require a reboot (3) Much faster reboot (4) Dual band 5.3GHz and 5.8GHz in one product (5) RSSI reading local and remote side (6) Ability to locate noise at AU or SU without interrupting traffic Considering Alvarion has a tech in the local area I wouldn't expect anything less than a free visit. Scanning the numerous emails between all of us on this topic I'm unable to find the offer. Could you forward me the exchange you are referring to? Trango offered to fly a tech out to us from across the country for free. Free is in quotations because I don't believe anything is free...you're paying for it somewhere in this case by purchasing product. grin There is more, but it's Sunday and I've got yet another 4 or 5yr old birthday party to attend! Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 12:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Re dual polarity via software, I and others have always said it would be nice. You've never heard me argue against it and you have heard me acknowledge that this is Trango's key Trango only differentiator. But we all understand that and have acknowledged it many times. Lots of things are nice, some just have higher priority than others. For every 1 thing VL may not have
Re: [WISPA] vendor specs
I was referring to On-the-Fly Dual Pol,Dual Freq, Dual Radio, Dual Ethernet. Or improved manufacturering methods,allowing lower costs of production. But you've answered that point in pastposts of this thread already. I guess all I was trying to say was, why not take the same pride that Alvarion has with innovating theirsoftware, and put the same effort into hardware features.I admit, the hardwareis really well built, and does not have a lot of room to improve, but I'm not sure their has been a significant hardware advancement since the product line was first developed (4 years ago?), as far as adding new features. Alvarion may actually have Dual port/radio models, but its a hefty aditional cost, not something just thrown in as standard. A second Ethernet port for example, only has a manufacturer's cost of less than $15, and is something that should be thrown in for low cost,such as Tranzeo has done with their second Ethernet POE out port model. So to summerize, I am not challenging the quality of hardware, just advancement of new features. Each year I like to see the cost keep come down or the features keep getting added. Tom DeReggiRapidDSL Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary To: WISPA General List Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 6:02 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Hi Tom. What hardware features are you referring to? PatrickThis footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned byPineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(191).This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned byPineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(43).This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned byPineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.8/455 - Release Date: 9/22/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] vendor specs
Again, is the goal to get the best link, or the strongest signal? Although I get the arguement, that RSSI allows you the best alignment, I'd rather know the SNR, because it helps me determine where the noise is without having to do another time consuming step of testing for noise before aligning. They way to rule on this, is compare what the average install times are for each product line. Our surveying had showed that installers generally completed installs faster when using Alvarion products. Again, I'm not saying I prefer Alvarion over the product that we use more commonly, but I give credit where credit is due. Tom DeReggiRapidDSL Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brad Belton To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 12:59 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Exactly, and this is can be compounded on a new installation as you might be seeing noise or could it be you are just misaligned? Techs are creatures of habit. They may think 4 LED bars is all that is ever needed because thats what they typically see. The next install they throw up a radio and get their usual 4 LED bars and dont realize 5 or more is obtainable. Then a rainstorm comes in along with a 20F drop in temperature and the link goes to crap because in fact they aligned the radio on a side lobe. Brad -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gino A. VillariniSent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 11:48 AMTo: 'WISPA General List'Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs The problem with SNR for alignment purposes is that you are dealing with a variable in noise, with rssi you work with fixed numbers. Im not dissing SNR, it is extremely important, But for example, in order to trouble shoot a link let say I install a Link and Im seeing a a SNR of 6 on this link,how the heck can I determine if the antenna is miss aligned or the noise floor is very high ??? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick LearySent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 12:24 PMTo: WISPA General ListSubject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Right, but the LED bar on the CPE can be used to do that. I mean, isn't SNR more complete than just RSSI, meaning if your SNR is good than the RSSI is by default good. Anyway, I have never heard of any moderately experienced VL user say the units did not convey enough info to easily establish a link and understand the quality of the connection. Consider that with the CPE VL radio the LEDs will show: WLAN link light- · Solid Green Unit is associated with an AU, no wireless link activity · Blinking Green Data received or transmitted on the wireless link, blinking rate is proportional to wireless traffic rate · Off Wireless link is disabled Status light · Solid Green Power is available and self-test passed · Blinking Amber Testing (not ready for operation) · Red Self-test failed fatal error Ethernet light · Solid Green Ethernet link between the indoor and outdoor units is detected, no activity · Blinking Green Ethernet connectivity is OK, with traffic on the port. Blinking rate proportional to traffic rate · Red No Ethernet connectivity between the indoor and outdoor units SNR bar · Red LED: Signal is too low (SNR4 dB) · Orange LED: Signal is too high (SNR 50 dB) · 8 green LEDs: Quality of the received signal (green LEDs translate per below) LED 1 (red) is On - Signal is too low (SNR 4 dB) LED 2 (green) is On - SNR 4 dB LEDs 2 to 3 (green) are On - SNR 8 dB LEDs 2 to 4 (green) are On - SNR 13 dB LEDs 2 to 5 (green) are On - SNR 19 dB LEDs 2 to 6 (green) are On - SNR 26 dB LEDs 2 to 7 (green) are On - SNR 31 dB LEDs 2 to 8 (green) are On - SNR 38 dB LEDs 2 to 9 (green) are On - SNR 44 dB LEDs 2 to 9 (green) and 10 (orange) are On Signal is too high (SNR 50 dB) Mod level : Sensitivity : Min. SNR (this chart for 20MHz channel) 1 : -89 dBm : 6 dB 2 : -88 dBm : 7 dB 3 : -86 dBm : 9 dB 4 : -84 dBm : 11 dB 5 : -81 dBm : 14 dB 6 : -77 dBm : 18 dB 7 : -73 dBm : 22 dB 8 : -71 dBm : 23 dB Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of G. villariniSent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 8:48 AMTo: wireless@wispa.orgSubject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Patrick, Rssi is very important to determine if a link is properly aligned and its achieving its
Re: [WISPA] vendor specs
It took me a while to get this. But doing it by SNR actually is a big time saver during installtion. With alternate brands, we need to do several tests to determine if a radio is optimally aligned. Meaning alternate brands, judging by lights, only gave us a signal strength, but we still had to plug in a laptop to test if the link was good, before finally locking down the radio. This made many installs difficult to do with one person. Alvarion's SNR method, makes the LEDs more useful to complete a job. Tom DeReggiRapidDSL Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary To: WISPA General List Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 12:36 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs I should have also noted that per the info below, most Alvarion operators simply have a policy that they will only connect subscribers for whom a minimum number of the green LEDs will fire and hold. For example, having 4 for of the 8 green LEDs light should get you a link with the best mod level, but 5 will do that plus give you a margin of about 8dB. It is a simple thing once you get used to it, which does not take long. Remember, there is no standard way to show these things, but Id argue that what we show is more complete and real in terms of link quality. Just showing RSSI would dump it down, wouldnt it? Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick LearySent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 9:24 AMTo: WISPA General ListSubject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Right, but the LED bar on the CPE can be used to do that. I mean, isn't SNR more complete than just RSSI, meaning if your SNR is good than the RSSI is by default good. Anyway, I have never heard of any moderately experienced VL user say the units did not convey enough info to easily establish a link and understand the quality of the connection. Consider that with the CPE VL radio the LEDs will show: WLAN link light- · Solid Green Unit is associated with an AU, no wireless link activity · Blinking Green Data received or transmitted on the wireless link, blinking rate is proportional to wireless traffic rate · Off Wireless link is disabled Status light · Solid Green Power is available and self-test passed · Blinking Amber Testing (not ready for operation) · Red Self-test failed fatal error Ethernet light · Solid Green Ethernet link between the indoor and outdoor units is detected, no activity · Blinking Green Ethernet connectivity is OK, with traffic on the port. Blinking rate proportional to traffic rate · Red No Ethernet connectivity between the indoor and outdoor units SNR bar · Red LED: Signal is too low (SNR4 dB) · Orange LED: Signal is too high (SNR 50 dB) · 8 green LEDs: Quality of the received signal (green LEDs translate per below) LED 1 (red) is On - Signal is too low (SNR 4 dB) LED 2 (green) is On - SNR 4 dB LEDs 2 to 3 (green) are On - SNR 8 dB LEDs 2 to 4 (green) are On - SNR 13 dB LEDs 2 to 5 (green) are On - SNR 19 dB LEDs 2 to 6 (green) are On - SNR 26 dB LEDs 2 to 7 (green) are On - SNR 31 dB LEDs 2 to 8 (green) are On - SNR 38 dB LEDs 2 to 9 (green) are On - SNR 44 dB LEDs 2 to 9 (green) and 10 (orange) are On Signal is too high (SNR 50 dB) Mod level : Sensitivity : Min. SNR (this chart for 20MHz channel) 1 : -89 dBm : 6 dB 2 : -88 dBm : 7 dB 3 : -86 dBm : 9 dB 4 : -84 dBm : 11 dB 5 : -81 dBm : 14 dB 6 : -77 dBm : 18 dB 7 : -73 dBm : 22 dB 8 : -71 dBm : 23 dB Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of G. villariniSent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 8:48 AMTo: wireless@wispa.orgSubject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Patrick, Rssi is very important to determine if a link is properly aligned and its achieving its link budget. Altough we dont use alvarion(yet), we are currently researching backhaul options and the way we comission ptp links here is that we run the calcs on radio mobile and spreedsheet to determine the link budget in advance to implementation. Snr wont help much there... Gino -Original Message- From: "Patrick Leary"[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 9/24/06 11:32:47 AM To: "WISPA General List"wireless@wispa.org Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Brad, Software controlled dual polarity might be nice. Not sure why you con
Re: [WISPA] vendor specs
I agree with that statement. (except you made a typo, should be without dish). But isn't the Canopy CPE without a dish also useless? Canopy CPE and Trango CPE, I believe both have 8 dbi antennas, and the Trango Atlas CPE performs within spec of what a 8 dbi antenna is expected to deliver. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 6:28 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Tom, I can give you some Canopy buying tips off line ... Also I would like to add that the $150 Trango fox is basically useless with the Dish, putting its true price to $250 or so ... Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 4:10 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs Gino, The prices you state seem way low. I've only see nthat on temporar or Ebay type buying. Is their a CONSISTENT source for $225 and $550 pricing in less than 25 qty? I believe that anyone that is required to buy in qty higher than 25 to get best price is getting overly burdened and likely loosing their savings after looking at all cash flow costs. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 11:05 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Let me comment on this #Canopy 5.7 AP - $970 (Advantage $1,974) is this MRSP ? you can buy this the AP for $800 +/- , Advantage for $1500 #C/I advantage #Fixed up/down ratio Add GPS Sync, Feature rich firmware, NMS Software, Strong support, Good promos, Only Manufacturer to offer price conscious upgrade program, third party products (dishes , gps syncs) ect ect ect #$490 CPE ($737 advantage) .. yikes with CPE you have 3 options : Canopy Lite (1mbps) $170 +/- 25 packs Canopy (14 Mbps Burst) $225 +/- Canopy Advantage (14 Mbps sustained ) $550 ( way over priced IMHO ) Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 10:31 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] vendor specs Hi, I changed the subject line to reflect more the direction of this discussion (Trango vs. Canopy vs. Alvarion)... ;) This is just off the top of my head, and I would love to see more data on any of these radios: Trango 5830AP - $1,079 retail Dual polarity 10Mbps (auto up/down ratio) Easy management (CLI and web) $149 CPE ($199 up to 10 miles) Canopy 5.7 AP - $970 (Advantage $1,974) C/I advantage Fixed up/down ratio $490 CPE ($737 advantage) Alvarion VL AP - $4,500 (rough retail) 36Mbps and 40,000pps $1,000 CPE For whatever it's worth, we have over 2,500 CPE in the air and over 2,000 are Trango (900mhz, 2.4ghz, 5.8ghz). The Trango product has worked very well for us, and we are located on some mountaintop repeater locations that literally have over 100 antennas (paging, HAM, WISPs, etc.) within 100 yards of each other. Our biggest problem is frequency availability at all (regardless of radio choice)... we have a 2.4ghz AP at a repeater station that is full. We attempted to install a second sector today and ran a site survey at this location across the entire 2.4ghz band, the average signals ranged from -25 to -55 at the best. :( Travis Microserv Jon Langeler wrote: Tom, I have nothing to gain or lose by telling you what we've not only extensivley tested but also experienced over 6 years. We started using canopy since it began shipping and at least 100 trango SU between 3 different towers since beta. I just hate to see fellow wisp protest that there isn't a good product and struggle when their actually is a pretty darn good one...and on top of that has an upgrade path in it's vision, it keeps getting better. ARQ does not affect C/I like FEC does for example. When you say ARQ is fixing any resiliance problems that may be true. But you'll also suffer from increased latency and less throughput during those retransmissions. Not good if you want to support VOIP and keep customers happy. Having a low C/I means the system will be stable more often and maintain a lower retrans. Trango's ARQ is not even an option in the 5800 model which is what you and I probably have a decent percentage of in our Trango networks. Having a low C/I requirement affects other things like increases the range of a product. I'm laying out facts, you can convince yourself of whatever you want... Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Tom DeReggi wrote: Nice try, but I've found
Re: [WISPA] vendor specs
Patrick Leary wrote: I have a very interesting new (this month) pdf about this topic that compares Canopy Advantage and BreezeACCESS VL in a variety of ways, from a coverage modeling example using high end propagation software to VoIP stats using company documents from both companies. We think it makes a clear case for BreezeACCESS VL, far beyond the simple front end cost discussions. It is 189k in size and would be great fodder for discussion here. If you want a copy, e-mail me offlist. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 Patrick, I would be very interested in obtaining this doc. My wireless department is comprised of roughly 90% Canopy gear (4,000 subs), which we are very happy with. However, we are always looking for greener pastures. Thank you, Eric Muehleisen Internet Technology Specialist Nex-Tech http://www.nex-tech.com 785.625.7070 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs
Hello again Patrick, I see I failed to respond to a couple questions you had in the last paragraph of your post and wanted to respond now that I have a little time. By the way, training does not have to be $1,000 a head, as you know. We offer people to pay for the whole class than they can sell their own seats for whatever they want. We actually have some customers that use this as a profit center. Also, respectfully, isn't one's willingness to get trained a good measure of one's seriousness? And what professional training have you had for free that was wroth anything? Is there really ever anything for free? I think not. You're paying for it somewhere. grin While our partnership has been entrepreneurial at heart (as was our father and grandfather's partnerships), we also recognize the importance of keeping a company's direction focused at what it does best. In this case it is providing committed rate broadband solutions. The idea of organizing and profiting from a training seminar really doesn't excite us and would be a distraction from our focus. I believe our seriousness or commitment is far better measured by our failures and accomplishments than whether we pay $1000 a head for a product training class or not. Dad used to say you only need to make more right decisions than wrong to be successful. That's a pretty simplistic way of looking at life, but every day I keep his words in the back of my mind. I may never reach the level of success he enjoyed, but I will always continue to strive to be the best at whatever I do. Focus is a key element in achieving success. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 2:24 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Agreed, VL does have more niche features and some of those can be the sole reason VL makes the cut and other products do not. As you know VLAN support was the key feature in this particular case, but simply placing a CPE router on site will also fill that need. I'm a believer in the VL product, but there are currently a few too many basic pitfalls with the product. If I didn't care I wouldn't be posting about the VL. Let's face it this is some of the best exposure a manufacturer can ask for: users expressing improvements they would like to see implemented. The improvement requests here aren't without merit. Dual polarity and dual band capability are good ideas. There isn't any argument against it, so why not implement it? I guarantee it will result in additional VL sales. Trango has many features that VL does not currently offer in addition to the extremely important Dual Polarity ability: (1) Rx Threshold to maintain full payload capacity in noisy areas (2) Far fewer commands that require a reboot (3) Much faster reboot (4) Dual band 5.3GHz and 5.8GHz in one product (5) RSSI reading local and remote side (6) Ability to locate noise at AU or SU without interrupting traffic Considering Alvarion has a tech in the local area I wouldn't expect anything less than a free visit. Scanning the numerous emails between all of us on this topic I'm unable to find the offer. Could you forward me the exchange you are referring to? Trango offered to fly a tech out to us from across the country for free. Free is in quotations because I don't believe anything is free...you're paying for it somewhere in this case by purchasing product. grin There is more, but it's Sunday and I've got yet another 4 or 5yr old birthday party to attend! Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 12:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Re dual polarity via software, I and others have always said it would be nice. You've never heard me argue against it and you have heard me acknowledge that this is Trango's key Trango only differentiator. But we all understand that and have acknowledged it many times. Lots of things are nice, some just have higher priority than others. For every 1 thing VL may not have relative to Trango, we can probably find 10 things VL can do that Trango cannot, each of equal importance maybe to dual polarity. The ability to do VoIP well would be such a thing. Those with multipoint networks using Trango or Canopy are entirely stranded in terms of being able to do VoIP to any reasonable scale. Come on Brad. I was personally involved in some of the threads where I've seen my people (or me) attempt to answer every question you have had. I know Keith's management has offered to send him out there numerous times for free. I was pleased to be able to visit to understand what your customer was wanting to do. By the way, training does not have to be $1,000 a head, as you know. We offer people to pay for the whole class than they can sell their own seats for whatever
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs
I'm not missing the point at all. There is a debate and the findings aren't there yet whether OFDM and antenna polarity have a true benefit in outdoor UL PTMP systems and a 5.3/5.8 offering takes away from the current products spec's which is not a trade off were willing to do at this time. OK? However, Adding RSSI readings is on the other hand a key benefit that could be considered. Nothing is wrong with your questions as long as you understand the answers. And BTW, You can sell committed packages with Alvarion BreezeAccess VL. Just because many of our operators oversubscribe doesn't mean you have to. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 1:34 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Hello Brad, I think you are missing the point of the thread here. The point is to offer up constructive criticism of the VL product and how end users feel it could be improved upon. Are you saying adding a RSSI reading, adding dual polarity and adding dual band ability would not further improve the VL product? I think you are sorely mistaken. Certainly the VL product is working for thousands of end users. Where in any of my posts do I claim it is not? However, clearly a product that auto-rates itself down to a slower speed in the face of noise is not a product that we can use to support committed rate clients. Sure, we can fudge it for a short time and if the VL offered software polarity software band agility fix the problem fairly quickly. With the current VL product we are forced to truck roll to every client site and rotate polarity or in the event of an internal SU have to replace it with a horizontal solution. That simply isn't an option for us, but maybe other operations find the truck rolls enjoyable...grin The operators given to me by Alvarion as references using VL clearly state on their websites they are offering up to bandwidth packages. Not committed rate packages as we do. This is not to disparage them in any way...many of the references are many times larger than us and I applaud their success, however our target market is different than theirs. I want to use the VL product as it can offer the additional capacity we need, but without a few basic hardware features I don't see it as a fit for us. Again, that's what discussion is for...I'm here to discuss improvements I'd like to see in the VL product. What is wrong with that? Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Larson Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 10:50 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Brad Belton, Respectfully, there are 100's of wisp's proving you wrong. OFDM in UL has its place and making blanket statements to the contrary makes little sense. There is great debate in the industry of what value Dual Polarity via software offers an OFDM UL system. There is also considerable data on the fact that dual frequency solutions are not optimal. You keep harping on these same two issues yet we have a substantial installed base that grows by the day. There will never be a perfect solution for everyone and I understand that VL may not be a fit for your current situation. BreezeAccess VL is a viable solution that is being heavily deployed and we continue to replace dual polarity via software and dual band 5.3/5.8 solutions with great results (and they speak for themselves). I think this thread was started by one such replacement, an upgrade from Trango that got the provider faster data rates, better support, etc. etc. They'll be many more testimonials in the coming 12 months. Scriv said it best, It's like the difference between night and day. We have zero downtime on our backhaul now. We were getting countless reports of downtime from our network monitoring system before. Now it just works. I don't think I can overstate the impact Alvarion VL has had on my network. Oh and lets not forget the fact that Scriv is probably sleeping better at night without the outages he used to have. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 11:30 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Price is always a factor, but we would gladly pay a premium for VL with the sorely needed HARDWARE improvements: (1) Dual Polarity via software (2) Dual Band 5.3GHz and 5.8GHz These are time tested proven valuable HARDWARE features that VL is lacking. With these features added to VL there would not be a comparable product on the market other than home-brew's like StarOS MikroTik. Without these HARDWARE improvements the VL product is too susceptible to noise and therefore not a viable solution for committed rate business offerings. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Larson Sent: Monday, September
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon
channel planning. hah! as if everyone worked nicely together. I rather like Canopy with its GPS. It makes it a competition killer. :) And yes, even Alvarion EQ can't handle it... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 3:17 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon Jon, Why is that the case? You really think GPS on Canopy is some cool feature? Canopy must have GPS to function. Without it, it kills itself. It is all to prevent self-inflicted interference (remember, Canopy does not even have ATPC) and to allow for channel re-use. Other systems, like VL, do not need it. It provides far more capacity than Canopy, so it does not need to re-use channels and with basic channel planning you don't have issues with self-interference. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jon Langeler Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 9:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs My problem with VL is that it doesn't offer a scheduled mac...no syncronization capability. Now if this get's incorporated down the line I would be interested? We've used it all, you name it, and at this point if it doesn't have GPS sync I'm hesitant to even touch it. That is one advantage that WIMAX will be bringing... Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Patrick Leary wrote: I have a very interesting new (this month) pdf about this topic that compares Canopy Advantage and BreezeACCESS VL in a variety of ways, from a coverage modeling example using high end propagation software to VoIP stats using company documents from both companies. We think it makes a clear case for BreezeACCESS VL, far beyond the simple front end cost discussions. It is 189k in size and would be great fodder for discussion here. If you want a copy, e-mail me offlist. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(192). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(42). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon
Patrick Leary wrote: Why is that the case? You really think GPS on Canopy is some cool feature? Canopy must have GPS to function. Without it, it kills itself. It is all to prevent self-inflicted interference (remember, Canopy does not even have ATPC) and to allow for channel re-use. Other systems, like VL, do not need it. It provides far more capacity than Canopy, so it does not need to re-use channels and with basic channel planning you don't have issues with self-interference. This thread is really turning into a mess. The above statement is simply wrong. We operate a number of Canopy base stations without GPS. In fact, for all the Canopy radios we own we only have two CMMs. Mostly because the CMM doesn't fit in well with our network. Regardless, Canopy does not need GPS to function. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs
Overall, Motorola corporate has made excellent decisions and executed very well when it comes to this total space of wireless and I know every one of them. From the launch of Canopy to the latest buy of Symbol, for sure arguably the best end-to-end strategic decision making in the business. They now compete with us on every front, every niche and macro market. That, combined with their size, wealth and power makes them really the only competitor worth worrying about in the total sense of the market. So, for the record, I have nothing but respect for them. That does not mean they field the best products. But, it does mean they carry a damn big stick. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jon Langeler Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 11:00 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs I'm sure most know that was a 'play' and basically secured Moto's position to sell WIMAX gear to the 2nd largest 2.5GHz spectrum holder. It would have been interesting if Alvarion had been in their place...not sure if you guys have that kind of change sitting around. Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Patrick Leary wrote: Speaking of Clearwire, folks here are aware that Motorola now owns NextNet, the hardware supplier to Clearwire (that once was part of Clearwire, at least in ownership terms), right? The purchase was IN ADDITION to the $300M investment Motorola made into Clearwire http://telephonyonline.com/wireless/finance/motorola_clearwire_nextnet_ 0 70606/ To give you an idea of how much that Moto investment is relative to your Canopy businessthat is more than Canopy makes for Motorola worldwide over 2 years. Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 7:57 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs Ahhh... there's always a catch... so now Motorola has your customer's address and can use that for their own marketing, etc. without you ever knowing. They could possibly even sell the list to someone (ClearWire) down the road and you would never know. Travis Microserv Anthony Will wrote: -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(192). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(42). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs
Hello Brad, Forgive me as I just now realized you are with Alvarion and not an end user. Refresh my memory; did we speak on the phone a few weeks ago regarding our initial VL deployment? If so, I want to publicly thank you for your time and expertise. Your input is/was valuable and I appreciate it. Regarding the findings I think dual band and dual polarity have been proven beneficial for many years and long before wISPs even existed. Dual polarity agility can help in issues unrelated to noise. Thermal ducting is one scenario where simply flipping polarity can in some cases improve a link suffering. Why suffer when you could flip a switch and get your client back up and running? Dual band goes without saying as a benefit to the product. If Alvarion engineers are concerned about loosing sensitivity simply add a separate radio for the 5.3GHz band. I think you, Tom, me and others know this is a copout by Alvarion RD engineers and one radio can be made to support both bands with insignificant drawbacks. Over subscription hasn't been the issue with the VL we have deployed. Noise and the lack of tools in the VL toolbox due to hardware limitations has been the Achilles heel. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Larson Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 12:59 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs I'm not missing the point at all. There is a debate and the findings aren't there yet whether OFDM and antenna polarity have a true benefit in outdoor UL PTMP systems and a 5.3/5.8 offering takes away from the current products spec's which is not a trade off were willing to do at this time. OK? However, Adding RSSI readings is on the other hand a key benefit that could be considered. Nothing is wrong with your questions as long as you understand the answers. And BTW, You can sell committed packages with Alvarion BreezeAccess VL. Just because many of our operators oversubscribe doesn't mean you have to. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 1:34 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Hello Brad, I think you are missing the point of the thread here. The point is to offer up constructive criticism of the VL product and how end users feel it could be improved upon. Are you saying adding a RSSI reading, adding dual polarity and adding dual band ability would not further improve the VL product? I think you are sorely mistaken. Certainly the VL product is working for thousands of end users. Where in any of my posts do I claim it is not? However, clearly a product that auto-rates itself down to a slower speed in the face of noise is not a product that we can use to support committed rate clients. Sure, we can fudge it for a short time and if the VL offered software polarity software band agility fix the problem fairly quickly. With the current VL product we are forced to truck roll to every client site and rotate polarity or in the event of an internal SU have to replace it with a horizontal solution. That simply isn't an option for us, but maybe other operations find the truck rolls enjoyable...grin The operators given to me by Alvarion as references using VL clearly state on their websites they are offering up to bandwidth packages. Not committed rate packages as we do. This is not to disparage them in any way...many of the references are many times larger than us and I applaud their success, however our target market is different than theirs. I want to use the VL product as it can offer the additional capacity we need, but without a few basic hardware features I don't see it as a fit for us. Again, that's what discussion is for...I'm here to discuss improvements I'd like to see in the VL product. What is wrong with that? Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Larson Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 10:50 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Brad Belton, Respectfully, there are 100's of wisp's proving you wrong. OFDM in UL has its place and making blanket statements to the contrary makes little sense. There is great debate in the industry of what value Dual Polarity via software offers an OFDM UL system. There is also considerable data on the fact that dual frequency solutions are not optimal. You keep harping on these same two issues yet we have a substantial installed base that grows by the day. There will never be a perfect solution for everyone and I understand that VL may not be a fit for your current situation. BreezeAccess VL is a viable solution that is being heavily deployed and we continue to replace dual polarity via software and dual band 5.3/5.8 solutions with great results (and they speak for themselves). I think this thread was started by one such replacement, an upgrade from
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon
I'm speaking about multipoint matt, not ptp. The dedicated ptp you are doing is by far the exception. Canopy is designed, built, and sold to be primarily a pmp system. I've never met or heard of a Canopy pmp network of any scale that did not require GPS. If I am wrong, I am happy to eat crow. Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 1:01 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon Patrick Leary wrote: Why is that the case? You really think GPS on Canopy is some cool feature? Canopy must have GPS to function. Without it, it kills itself. It is all to prevent self-inflicted interference (remember, Canopy does not even have ATPC) and to allow for channel re-use. Other systems, like VL, do not need it. It provides far more capacity than Canopy, so it does not need to re-use channels and with basic channel planning you don't have issues with self-interference. This thread is really turning into a mess. The above statement is simply wrong. We operate a number of Canopy base stations without GPS. In fact, for all the Canopy radios we own we only have two CMMs. Mostly because the CMM doesn't fit in well with our network. Regardless, Canopy does not need GPS to function. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(191). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(43). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs
Comments inline: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 4:49 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Hello Brad, Forgive me as I just now realized you are with Alvarion and not an end user. Refresh my memory; did we speak on the phone a few weeks ago regarding our initial VL deployment? If so, I want to publicly thank you for your time and expertise. Your input is/was valuable and I appreciate it. :No it wasn't me. Regarding the findings I think dual band and dual polarity have been proven beneficial for many years and long before wISPs even existed. :No not at all. Not for Unlicensed OFDM PTMP gear-send me the study or authority who has done the research. Dual polarity agility can help in issues unrelated to noise. Thermal ducting is one scenario where simply flipping polarity can in some cases improve a link suffering. Why suffer when you could flip a switch and get your client back up and running? :answered above. Dual band goes without saying as a benefit to the product. If Alvarion engineers are concerned about loosing sensitivity simply add a separate radio for the 5.3GHz band. I think you, Tom, me and others know this is a copout by Alvarion RD engineers and one radio can be made to support both bands with insignificant drawbacks. :No, I don't have a single customer in NE USA asking for a dual radio design. Not one. There is no groundswell of customers asking so at the moment it would be a waste of resources. Over subscription hasn't been the issue with the VL we have deployed. Noise and the lack of tools in the VL toolbox due to hardware limitations has been the Achilles heel. :OK, and I wonder how full a tool box is really needed? I only experienced a 5 mile PTMP VL scenario in a tier one city that had such a noise issue. Shorter links would have worked just fine and do. Every city is different. This may very well be the case with your network and your tastes but at the same time were delivering a product that a crap load of people are happy about in it's current state. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Larson Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 12:59 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs I'm not missing the point at all. There is a debate and the findings aren't there yet whether OFDM and antenna polarity have a true benefit in outdoor UL PTMP systems and a 5.3/5.8 offering takes away from the current products spec's which is not a trade off were willing to do at this time. OK? However, Adding RSSI readings is on the other hand a key benefit that could be considered. Nothing is wrong with your questions as long as you understand the answers. And BTW, You can sell committed packages with Alvarion BreezeAccess VL. Just because many of our operators oversubscribe doesn't mean you have to. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 1:34 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Hello Brad, I think you are missing the point of the thread here. The point is to offer up constructive criticism of the VL product and how end users feel it could be improved upon. Are you saying adding a RSSI reading, adding dual polarity and adding dual band ability would not further improve the VL product? I think you are sorely mistaken. Certainly the VL product is working for thousands of end users. Where in any of my posts do I claim it is not? However, clearly a product that auto-rates itself down to a slower speed in the face of noise is not a product that we can use to support committed rate clients. Sure, we can fudge it for a short time and if the VL offered software polarity software band agility fix the problem fairly quickly. With the current VL product we are forced to truck roll to every client site and rotate polarity or in the event of an internal SU have to replace it with a horizontal solution. That simply isn't an option for us, but maybe other operations find the truck rolls enjoyable...grin The operators given to me by Alvarion as references using VL clearly state on their websites they are offering up to bandwidth packages. Not committed rate packages as we do. This is not to disparage them in any way...many of the references are many times larger than us and I applaud their success, however our target market is different than theirs. I want to use the VL product as it can offer the additional capacity we need, but without a few basic hardware features I don't see it as a fit for us. Again, that's what discussion is for...I'm here to discuss improvements I'd like to see in the VL product. What is wrong with that? Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Larson Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 10
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs
Hello Brian, Sure it does. Trango M5830 is a dual polarity and dual band product. It can operate in the 5.8GHz or 5.3GHz bands in either horizontal or vertical polarity on the fly all via software commands. The M5830 has been a solid workhorse for years for us. The only drawback to the product today is purely a capacity issue. 8-9Mbps HDX is just not enough anymore. However, this is a good problem to have! Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Rohrbacher Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 10:44 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs inline Brad Belton wrote: Price is always a factor, but we would gladly pay a premium for VL with the sorely needed HARDWARE improvements: (1) Dual Polarity via software (2) Dual Band 5.3GHz and 5.8GHz I know trango does dual polarity, but who does dual band? These are time tested proven valuable HARDWARE features that VL is lacking. With these features added to VL there would not be a comparable product on the market other than home-brew's like StarOS MikroTik. Without these HARDWARE improvements the VL product is too susceptible to noise and therefore not a viable solution for committed rate business offerings. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Larson Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 9:31 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Gino, I have to admit Alvarion has some work to do for the smaller wisp's out there. Patrick will have his hands full on this one. But for wisps buying 100 packs on a bi or monthly plan the pricing below just doesn't seem like such a deal breaker anymore when you add up the feature sets. For a few more months on an ROI model you can buy Alvarion. The whole point of this thread has been the fact that many (including Scriv) have found out Trango still wins, because Trango is less expensive or Canopy for that matter. may not exactly be the case. The ongoing costs of truck rolls, tech support issues, and shorter coverage modeling can kill an ROI model faster than the cost of cpe. Add in voip coverage modeling and the dynamics change once again. I have seen several advanced studies of building data/voip wireless networks where BreezeAccess VL used half the tower/base station sites (therefore less leases and operational expenses), gave twice the throughput per cell site, and can handle more than 10X's the amount of voip traffic. Throw in the addition of maintaining twice the amount of gear and once again we come out ahead. This was really driven home on a few backhauling for mesh projects with drive testing of different technologies and the findings REALLY blew me away. No kidding folks the differences are like night and day and you'll be hearing about some of these networks this year. I first saw the differences several years ago where a project out for bid was installing 2,500 cpe's in a seven square mile area with trees and rolling hills. With a $125 premium on cpe the total network costs with operational expenses was less expensive than a Canopy solution and we gave 100% coverage. Alvarion CPE installation was eave mount on 1 square mile centers vs high rooftop with more towers needed (again saving the service provider money). Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 6:44 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Trango Atlas CPE with dish $250? Canopy with dish $275 Canopy Advantage Cluster: 6 Ap's @ $1500 each = $9k (you can start your pop with a fcc certified omni unit for $2.7k and evolve to a full sector later) CMM Micro for Power and Sync = $1.5k *optional BAM - Prizm = $2k *optional The CMM Micro is optional component for GPS Sync, you can achieve sync among the cluster with 10 ft of cat 5 and 6 rj11 connectors BAM - Prizm is a NMS for Management but is NOT a required component, you can manage all your settings from the web interface on each unit including bandwidth and such. I would only recommend the Prizm NMS for big WISP's (200+ units ) About the Third Party: There are a couple on 3rd party improvements for canopy, almost all were created on a cost savings stand point, Example: Motorola reflector dish for 10 mile + links $100 Beehive Wireless reflector dish for 10 mile links $49.95 (fcc certified) Motorola CMM GPS Sync System $1.5k PacketFLux GPS Sync $300 Any other questions ? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 4:53 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs So what is the onesy-twosy price of a Trango Atlas with an extended range antenna? What is the price for a Canopy Advantage CPE
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon
For sure I am no expert there. Plenty of skilled Canopy users here and I believe to a WISP here each one that is scaled uses the GPS sync. I leave it to them to chime in. Some already have, like Jon L., Rick S., Gino, Mike B. I just know we get no requests for it from VL users an there would be little benefit. The system simply does not require it. I mean, we only need 3 sectors of 20MHz to net out over 90mbps of capacity. And then there is the 10MHz channel options. So there are plenty of channels to work with. Also, our system uses an intelligent ATPC and cell distance learning so the gear isn't driving power beyond what it needs to sustain links at whatever mod level the operator selects. Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 3:07 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon Patrick Leary wrote: I'm speaking about multipoint matt, not ptp. The dedicated ptp you are doing is by far the exception. Canopy is designed, built, and sold to be primarily a pmp system. I've never met or heard of a Canopy pmp network of any scale that did not require GPS. I'd be interested in further explanation on this topic. We have some Canopy pmp and haven't found the lack of GPS a problem. Granted we don't have a large amount of pmp, but I would certainly like to understand any future pain before we experience it. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(191). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(42). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon
C'mon Patrick .. GPS is not a must on Canopy, I have half of my pops without it ... I don't really like when people make statements like this, you sound like you have years of hands on Canopy experience... Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 3:17 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon Jon, Why is that the case? You really think GPS on Canopy is some cool feature? Canopy must have GPS to function. Without it, it kills itself. It is all to prevent self-inflicted interference (remember, Canopy does not even have ATPC) and to allow for channel re-use. Other systems, like VL, do not need it. It provides far more capacity than Canopy, so it does not need to re-use channels and with basic channel planning you don't have issues with self-interference. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jon Langeler Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 9:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs My problem with VL is that it doesn't offer a scheduled mac...no syncronization capability. Now if this get's incorporated down the line I would be interested? We've used it all, you name it, and at this point if it doesn't have GPS sync I'm hesitant to even touch it. That is one advantage that WIMAX will be bringing... Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Patrick Leary wrote: I have a very interesting new (this month) pdf about this topic that compares Canopy Advantage and BreezeACCESS VL in a variety of ways, from a coverage modeling example using high end propagation software to VoIP stats using company documents from both companies. We think it makes a clear case for BreezeACCESS VL, far beyond the simple front end cost discussions. It is 189k in size and would be great fodder for discussion here. If you want a copy, e-mail me offlist. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(192). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(42). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs
Hello Scriv, Sorry to bore you...certainly not our intent. You last attempt to end the thread was met with others posting not Brad or me. Regardless, I agree we're done with it. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 8:18 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs Brad and Brad. You guys are getting boringsaying the same drivel over and over. PLEASE either take your broken record off line or say something original. Scriv Brad Belton wrote: Hello Brad, I think you are missing the point of the thread here. The point is to offer up constructive criticism of the VL product and how end users feel it could be improved upon. Are you saying adding a RSSI reading, adding dual polarity and adding dual band ability would not further improve the VL product? I think you are sorely mistaken. Certainly the VL product is working for thousands of end users. Where in any of my posts do I claim it is not? However, clearly a product that auto-rates itself down to a slower speed in the face of noise is not a product that we can use to support committed rate clients. Sure, we can fudge it for a short time and if the VL offered software polarity software band agility fix the problem fairly quickly. With the current VL product we are forced to truck roll to every client site and rotate polarity or in the event of an internal SU have to replace it with a horizontal solution. That simply isn't an option for us, but maybe other operations find the truck rolls enjoyable...grin The operators given to me by Alvarion as references using VL clearly state on their websites they are offering up to bandwidth packages. Not committed rate packages as we do. This is not to disparage them in any way...many of the references are many times larger than us and I applaud their success, however our target market is different than theirs. I want to use the VL product as it can offer the additional capacity we need, but without a few basic hardware features I don't see it as a fit for us. Again, that's what discussion is for...I'm here to discuss improvements I'd like to see in the VL product. What is wrong with that? Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Larson Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 10:50 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Brad Belton, Respectfully, there are 100's of wisp's proving you wrong. OFDM in UL has its place and making blanket statements to the contrary makes little sense. There is great debate in the industry of what value Dual Polarity via software offers an OFDM UL system. There is also considerable data on the fact that dual frequency solutions are not optimal. You keep harping on these same two issues yet we have a substantial installed base that grows by the day. There will never be a perfect solution for everyone and I understand that VL may not be a fit for your current situation. BreezeAccess VL is a viable solution that is being heavily deployed and we continue to replace dual polarity via software and dual band 5.3/5.8 solutions with great results (and they speak for themselves). I think this thread was started by one such replacement, an upgrade from Trango that got the provider faster data rates, better support, etc. etc. They'll be many more testimonials in the coming 12 months. Scriv said it best, It's like the difference between night and day. We have zero downtime on our backhaul now. We were getting countless reports of downtime from our network monitoring system before. Now it just works. I don't think I can overstate the impact Alvarion VL has had on my network. Oh and lets not forget the fact that Scriv is probably sleeping better at night without the outages he used to have. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 11:30 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Price is always a factor, but we would gladly pay a premium for VL with the sorely needed HARDWARE improvements: (1) Dual Polarity via software (2) Dual Band 5.3GHz and 5.8GHz These are time tested proven valuable HARDWARE features that VL is lacking. With these features added to VL there would not be a comparable product on the market other than home-brew's like StarOS MikroTik. Without these HARDWARE improvements the VL product is too susceptible to noise and therefore not a viable solution for committed rate business offerings. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Larson Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 9:31 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Gino, I have to admit Alvarion has some work to do for the smaller wisp's out there. Patrick will have his hands full on this one
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon
Well, so far as we can tell the only thing that can kill canopy, IS CANOPY. We have put it up against WaveRider, Alvarion, and 802.11b. They all fell of the face of the earth. We have 16 tower sites deployed, all 900Mhz and 2.4, over 1000 CPE and more on the way. (I realize there are many people bigger than us.) We use a mix of MTI Omni's, MTI or Tiltek 120deg Sectors (MTI for Horizontal and Tiltek for Vertical) and integrated 60deg sectors (I really wish someone would come out with a descent H-pol as I don't like the integrated antenna) with 900. Cyclone Omni's or 120deg sectors on 2.4. Here is what I have found with GPS Sourced Sync vs. Generate Sync: If you want channel reuse you need GPS sourced sync. If you have a tower more than 8 miles away, you need to use different channels no matter what, even with GPS sourced sync you still have speed of light issues from tower to tower. Can you Generate sync and deploy multiple AP's in a given area, yes. You just need to make sure you have Frequency separation. Does this mean I recommend it, NO. Also even with every site GPS Synced, you still can only put so many AP's in a given area be for you need to go to a different polarity. At least we know there will never be another 900Mhz based ISP in one of our towns. Also on a side note, I have never found a problem with 2.4, it is 900 that will give you problems, it just carries so far. If the noise floor was lower, and Canopy could run at -90 we would have coverage for a long ways. It seems like we can always pick up a AP at -80. YMMV. Mike Bushard, Jr Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 5:07 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon Patrick Leary wrote: I'm speaking about multipoint matt, not ptp. The dedicated ptp you are doing is by far the exception. Canopy is designed, built, and sold to be primarily a pmp system. I've never met or heard of a Canopy pmp network of any scale that did not require GPS. I'd be interested in further explanation on this topic. We have some Canopy pmp and haven't found the lack of GPS a problem. Granted we don't have a large amount of pmp, but I would certainly like to understand any future pain before we experience it. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] vendor specs
Please forgive my outburst of rude, brash behavior here. I had a bad day and I should know better than to type while I am mad! Scriv John Scrivner wrote: Brad and Brad. You guys are getting boringsaying the same drivel over and over. PLEASE either take your broken record off line or say something original. Scriv Brad Belton wrote: Hello Brad, I think you are missing the point of the thread here. The point is to offer up constructive criticism of the VL product and how end users feel it could be improved upon. Are you saying adding a RSSI reading, adding dual polarity and adding dual band ability would not further improve the VL product? I think you are sorely mistaken. Certainly the VL product is working for thousands of end users. Where in any of my posts do I claim it is not? However, clearly a product that auto-rates itself down to a slower speed in the face of noise is not a product that we can use to support committed rate clients. Sure, we can fudge it for a short time and if the VL offered software polarity software band agility fix the problem fairly quickly. With the current VL product we are forced to truck roll to every client site and rotate polarity or in the event of an internal SU have to replace it with a horizontal solution. That simply isn't an option for us, but maybe other operations find the truck rolls enjoyable...grin The operators given to me by Alvarion as references using VL clearly state on their websites they are offering up to bandwidth packages. Not committed rate packages as we do. This is not to disparage them in any way...many of the references are many times larger than us and I applaud their success, however our target market is different than theirs. I want to use the VL product as it can offer the additional capacity we need, but without a few basic hardware features I don't see it as a fit for us. Again, that's what discussion is for...I'm here to discuss improvements I'd like to see in the VL product. What is wrong with that? Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Larson Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 10:50 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Brad Belton, Respectfully, there are 100's of wisp's proving you wrong. OFDM in UL has its place and making blanket statements to the contrary makes little sense. There is great debate in the industry of what value Dual Polarity via software offers an OFDM UL system. There is also considerable data on the fact that dual frequency solutions are not optimal. You keep harping on these same two issues yet we have a substantial installed base that grows by the day. There will never be a perfect solution for everyone and I understand that VL may not be a fit for your current situation. BreezeAccess VL is a viable solution that is being heavily deployed and we continue to replace dual polarity via software and dual band 5.3/5.8 solutions with great results (and they speak for themselves). I think this thread was started by one such replacement, an upgrade from Trango that got the provider faster data rates, better support, etc. etc. They'll be many more testimonials in the coming 12 months. Scriv said it best, It's like the difference between night and day. We have zero downtime on our backhaul now. We were getting countless reports of downtime from our network monitoring system before. Now it just works. I don't think I can overstate the impact Alvarion VL has had on my network. Oh and lets not forget the fact that Scriv is probably sleeping better at night without the outages he used to have. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 11:30 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Price is always a factor, but we would gladly pay a premium for VL with the sorely needed HARDWARE improvements: (1) Dual Polarity via software (2) Dual Band 5.3GHz and 5.8GHz These are time tested proven valuable HARDWARE features that VL is lacking. With these features added to VL there would not be a comparable product on the market other than home-brew's like StarOS MikroTik. Without these HARDWARE improvements the VL product is too susceptible to noise and therefore not a viable solution for committed rate business offerings. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Larson Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 9:31 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Gino, I have to admit Alvarion has some work to do for the smaller wisp's out there. Patrick will have his hands full on this one. But for wisps buying 100 packs on a bi or monthly plan the pricing below just doesn't seem like such a deal breaker anymore when you add up the feature sets. For a few more months on an ROI model you can
Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon
Hi, First, the spec sheet on Motorola's website says -86 RSSI. What happens when you have more than 3 towers outside of the 8 mile range of GPS sync? The 2.4ghz signal will definately travel that far, causing self-interference, correct? Travis Microserv Anthony Will wrote: Answers in-line Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I'd like to go back to the specs on different radios just so I can compare for myself... Trango 2.4ghz: 5Mbps auto ratio 8 non-overlapping channels 10mhz spectrum per channel -90 Receive level 15 mile range (without a grid) External connector and dual-pol integrated antenna $879 AP (WISP price) $479 SU (WISP price) Canopy 2.4ghz (regular): 7Mbps fixed ratio 3 non-overlapping channels 20mhz spectrum per channel -86 Receive level 2.4 canopy has a -89 receive level 5 mile range (without a dish) $902 AP (reseller price online) $490 SU (reseller price online) I am guessing your quoting single prices here. Now that maybe viable for this discussion but realistically if a WISP is not financially able to purchase in 25 packs they likely are very underfunded. So that the information is available a 25 pack of the Classic 2.4 ghz Canopy units is $6709 so if you break that down to single price that is about $269ea + $50 for reflector for a total of $319ea. http://www.doubleradius.com It is possible to get them cheaper then this but you will have to deal with co-op's or ebay.com Also I would never install a unit with a 60* pattern (Trango or Canopy). Just include the$50 for a reflector or stinger from http://www.wirelessbehive.com Based on the information from Mike, I could not use Canopy. In several areas, I have 4-5 towers located within 5 miles of each other how do I do that with Canopy? With Trango, I use a different channel for the sector pointing toward another tower (frequency planning and coordination is very important) and everything works great. Is there a solution for this with Canopy? This is where GPS sync comes in. You can point two different tower locations on the same frequency at each other and they will not interfere with each other. This is how it is possible to do a 6 AP cluster on one tower with only 3 non overlapping channels. Also, by using only a 10mhz spectrum per channel, Trango's channel 1 and channel 8 are actually outside the reach of Canopy and 802.11 (for the most part) and thus can almost always be used in a noisy environment. Remember with Canopy you generally don't have to avoid interference. Find the cleanest channel and 90% of the time you will be the few db louder then the noise that you need to make a viable link. Anthony Will Broadband Corp Travis Microserv Mike Bushard, Jr wrote: Well, so far as we can tell the only thing that can kill canopy, IS CANOPY. We have put it up against WaveRider, Alvarion, and 802.11b. They all fell of the face of the earth. We have 16 tower sites deployed, all 900Mhz and 2.4, over 1000 CPE and more on the way. (I realize there are many people bigger than us.) We use a mix of MTI Omni's, MTI or Tiltek 120deg Sectors (MTI for Horizontal and Tiltek for Vertical) and integrated 60deg sectors (I really wish someone would come out with a descent H-pol as I don't like the integrated antenna) with 900. Cyclone Omni's or 120deg sectors on 2.4. Here is what I have found with GPS Sourced Sync vs. Generate Sync: If you want channel reuse you need GPS sourced sync. If you have a tower more than 8 miles away, you need to use different channels no matter what, even with GPS sourced sync you still have speed of light issues from tower to tower. Can you Generate sync and deploy multiple AP's in a given area, yes. You just need to make sure you have Frequency separation. Does this mean I recommend it, NO. Also even with every site GPS Synced, you still can only put so many AP's in a given area be for you need to go to a different polarity. At least we know there will never be another 900Mhz based ISP in one of our towns. Also on a side note, I have never found a problem with 2.4, it is 900 that will give you problems, it just carries so far. If the noise floor was lower, and Canopy could run at -90 we would have coverage for a long ways. It seems like we can always pick up a AP at -80. YMMV. Mike Bushard, Jr Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 5:07 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon Patrick Leary wrote: I'm speaking about multipoint matt, not ptp. The dedicated ptp you are doing is by far the exception. Canopy is designed, built, and sold to be primarily a pmp system. I've never met or heard of a Canopy pmp network of any scale that did not require GPS. I'd be interested in further explanation on this topic. We have some Canopy pmp and haven't found the lack of GPS
Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon
Hey Patrick, GPS...there's many reasons and it's not a canopy vs alvarion debate from my standpoint, more so a scheduled mac(canopy, wimax, 3G...) vs unscheduled(wifi, VL, currently Trango). I'd predict that as wisp education progresses, they will realize the power of scheduled mac and GPS support. By then maybe the rest of the BreezeMAX code will have made way to the VL engineers and everyone can be happy :-) Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Patrick Leary wrote: Jon, Why is that the case? You really think GPS on Canopy is some cool feature? Canopy must have GPS to function. Without it, it kills itself. It is all to prevent self-inflicted interference (remember, Canopy does not even have ATPC) and to allow for channel re-use. Other systems, like VL, do not need it. It provides far more capacity than Canopy, so it does not need to re-use channels and with basic channel planning you don't have issues with self-interference. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] vendor specs
Geez Patrick, go to bed!!! Get some rest Seriously, this is a great list. Definitely shows how the VL is a completely different animal than the other options out there. Matt Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Patrick Leary wrote: I believe most if not all of the below are features not found among Trango or Canopy. I list a few of the advanced features. A few of these (probably some you have never heard of before or even thought of) I show in detail. Maybe this post will also explain why the VL is not simply an Atheros chipset in a case and why it is not simply some basic CSMA/CA. This is just a small sampling. The manual, with lots of tables, drawings, etc., is 277 pages of which most relate to things that can be configured/optimized. (I can send the pdf to any who want it.) · Chassis-based or stand alone AUs with multiple LEDs on the chassi blade versions, including current consumption · Redundant power supplies with status LEDs, including over temperature warning · GPS-sync module (for hoppers) also can be used for VL for their alarm capabilities · 110vAC or -48vDC power options · Built-in Ethernet repeater in the chassis blades to support over 600 feet from network switch/router to ODUs · AUs with antenna options, including built-in 60, 90, or 120 degree sectors plus options with external connector · OFDM (with FEQ) for NLOS ability to enable connection of more of the potential subscriber population · Adaptive modulation with configurable minimum modulation · Up to 40Mbps net (ftp) per sector · Over 40,000pps with small packets · No loss in capacity with varying frame size (all other UL gear capacity is dramatically reduced when passing small packets · FIPS 197 option. AES standard, no extra charge · Virtual LANs based on IEEE 802.1Q with standard QinQ built-in support · Layer-2 traffic prioritization based on IEEE 802.1p and layer-3 traffic prioritization based on either IP ToS Precedence (RFC791) or DSCP (RFC2474). It also supports traffic prioritization based on UDP and/or TCP port ranges. In addition, it may use the optional Wireless Link Prioritization (WLP) feature to fully support delay sensitive applications, enabling Multimedia Application Prioritization (MAP) for high performance voice and video. (MAP can increase VoIP capacity by as much as 500%) · Built-in surge suppression in both ODU and IDU · Full management of all components, from any point in the system. · Components can be managed using standard management tools through SNMP agents that implement standard and proprietary MIBs for remote setting of operational modes and parameters. Security features incorporated in BreezeACCESS VL units restrict access for management purposes to specific IP addresses and/or directions, that is, from the Ethernet and/or wireless link. · True toll quality VoIP (MOS of 4.1 or better) · Upload new or updated configuration file to multiple (selectable) units simultaneously, thus radically reducing the time spent on unit configuration maintenance. · Back up/shadow flash, can support two different versions of firmware · 5MHz (4.9GHz version), 10MHz, or 20MHz channel options. · SUs autorecognize and configure channel size · SUs available with external connector or integrated 21dBi with 10.5h/10.5v beamwidth · Multilevel password, multi-layer ESSIDs · Configuration of remote access direction (from Ethernet only, from wireless link only or from both) · Configuration of IP addresses of authorized stations · Numerous LEDs detailing advanced status information, plus tri-color 10-bar alignment LEDs that directly corresponds to SNR, including amber for warning signal is too strong (SNR 50dB) · Pole mount or band strap mounting options, hardware included · Power supply included, with reset feature and integrated surge suppression · Specialty Cat 5 connector · Industrial grade waterproof seal with O rings · Auto or configurable maximum cell distance · Automatic distance learning. Per SU Distance Learning mechanism controlled by the AU enables each SU to adapt its Acknowledge timeout to its actual distance from the AU, minimizing delays in the wireless link · Low Priority Traffic Minimum Percent feature ensures a selectable certain amount of the traffic is reserved to low priority packets to prevent starvation of low priority traffic when there is a high demand for high priority traffic. · MAC address deny and allow list · Able to configure size of concatenated frames (enables customization/optimization based on expected applications) · Best AU and preferred AU options in the SUs. (Best AU explanation: each of the AUs can be given a quality mark based on the level at which it is received by the SU. The SU scans for a configured number of cycles, gathering information from all the AUs with which it can communicate. At the end of the scanning period, the SU reaches a Best AU decision according to the information
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs
No, no...stay up! grin Good to see Patrick decided to engage the pros and cons of the VL product! Now maybe we can get some traction on offering up the improvements the VL product sorely needs. Surely Alvarion wants to improve the product right? The pros Patrick lists are certainly impressive, but all the wizardry in the world won't do you much good if the radio lacks fundamental RF abilities to block or avoid noise. Additionally many features Patrick lists below are found in other products albeit called something else. What can be improved? That's what we're here for...to offer suggestions to IMPROVE a product, right? (1) Dual polarity AU and SU via software control (2) RSSI reading (3) Quicker reboots and fewer of them for basic changes ipconfig etc. (4) Adhere to standard 568A or 568B CAT5 color code (5) Add Rx threshold to enable radio to maintain higher modulations in noisy environments (6) Increase size of weather seal opening to allow RJ45 connector to pass through I should mention many of these points have been long standing requests from long time VL clients. Patrick himself gave me a number of VL customers to contact as references and these points were brought up by them as well as me. Even Keith Edmonds a tech who works for Alvarion agreed there should be a RSSI reading (not just a SNR reading) and dual polarity would be beneficial. Additionally all of the references Patrick provided were not selling committed rate business packages, but rather up to or best effort packages. This is important to note as the VL will auto-rate itself down to a low modulation and slower speed in noisy environments. This is not a good feature if you are offering committed bandwidth packages and not best effort packages. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Larsen - Lists Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 1:05 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs Geez Patrick, go to bed!!! Get some rest Seriously, this is a great list. Definitely shows how the VL is a completely different animal than the other options out there. Matt Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Patrick Leary wrote: I believe most if not all of the below are features not found among Trango or Canopy. I list a few of the advanced features. A few of these (probably some you have never heard of before or even thought of) I show in detail. Maybe this post will also explain why the VL is not simply an Atheros chipset in a case and why it is not simply some basic CSMA/CA. This is just a small sampling. The manual, with lots of tables, drawings, etc., is 277 pages of which most relate to things that can be configured/optimized. (I can send the pdf to any who want it.) . Chassis-based or stand alone AUs with multiple LEDs on the chassi blade versions, including current consumption . Redundant power supplies with status LEDs, including over temperature warning . GPS-sync module (for hoppers) also can be used for VL for their alarm capabilities . 110vAC or -48vDC power options . Built-in Ethernet repeater in the chassis blades to support over 600 feet from network switch/router to ODUs . AUs with antenna options, including built-in 60, 90, or 120 degree sectors plus options with external connector . OFDM (with FEQ) for NLOS ability to enable connection of more of the potential subscriber population . Adaptive modulation with configurable minimum modulation . Up to 40Mbps net (ftp) per sector . Over 40,000pps with small packets . No loss in capacity with varying frame size (all other UL gear capacity is dramatically reduced when passing small packets . FIPS 197 option. AES standard, no extra charge . Virtual LANs based on IEEE 802.1Q with standard QinQ built-in support . Layer-2 traffic prioritization based on IEEE 802.1p and layer-3 traffic prioritization based on either IP ToS Precedence (RFC791) or DSCP (RFC2474). It also supports traffic prioritization based on UDP and/or TCP port ranges. In addition, it may use the optional Wireless Link Prioritization (WLP) feature to fully support delay sensitive applications, enabling Multimedia Application Prioritization (MAP) for high performance voice and video. (MAP can increase VoIP capacity by as much as 500%) . Built-in surge suppression in both ODU and IDU . Full management of all components, from any point in the system. . Components can be managed using standard management tools through SNMP agents that implement standard and proprietary MIBs for remote setting of operational modes and parameters. Security features incorporated in BreezeACCESS VL units restrict access for management purposes to specific IP addresses and/or directions, that is, from the Ethernet and/or wireless link. . True toll quality VoIP (MOS of 4.1 or better) . Upload new or updated configuration file to multiple (selectable) units
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs
Brad, Software controlled dual polarity might be nice. Not sure why you consistently harp on us though since no one else has it either other than your longtime preferred vendor. I am not as convinced about your complaint about RSSI. Is it just used to RSSI like being used to feet in stead of meters. But also, isn't RSSI less sophisticated and a less useful number than SNR since it is only an indication of receive signal without discounting noise? SNR provides a more accurate representation of wanted signal since it discounts for unwanted noise. Not sure of your complaint about the RJ45. No one else remarks about it and we don't have issues with water intrusion. In other words, it works well. If the opening was enlarged you increase the potential for water intrusion. Following the color code? Yes, as an old cabling guy, I would agree. But I am pleased to note that one is really running out of things to harp about when one continually highlights this a major deficiency. So now that I have responded here to your public mail, will you please admit that even if the VL came to life and saved your kid from a flood you complain that it was not fast enough and that it ripped the kid's clothes. I wish some day you'd accept that your customer chose VL and you should take the opportunity to learn about it instead of still trying to make it fail so you can get them to switch to Trango. Even the best radios will have room for improvement and every decent brand should have something special that differentiates it. You work so hard to find fault you miss opportunities to become proficient in more than one brand. So accept our invitations to allow engineer visits and accept our invitations to be trained. Know what I mean? Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs
Patrick, Rssi is very important to determine if a link is properly aligned and its achieving its link budget. Altough we dont use alvarion(yet), we are currently researching backhaul options and the way we comission ptp links here is that we run the calcs on radio mobile and spreedsheet to determine the link budget in advance to implementation. Snr wont help much there... Gino -Original Message- From: Patrick Leary[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 9/24/06 11:32:47 AM To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Brad, Software controlled dual polarity might be nice. Not sure why you consistently harp on us though since no one else has it either other than your longtime preferred vendor. I am not as convinced about your complaint about RSSI. Is it just used to RSSI like being used to feet in stead of meters. But also, isn't RSSI less sophisticated and a less useful number than SNR since it is only an indication of receive signal without discounting noise? SNR provides a more accurate representation of wanted signal since it discounts for unwanted noise. Not sure of your complaint about the RJ45. No one else remarks about it and we don't have issues with water intrusion. In other words, it works well. If the opening was enlarged you increase the potential for water intrusion. Following the color code? Yes, as an old cabling guy, I would agree. But I am pleased to note that one is really running out of things to harp about when one continually highlights this a major deficiency. So now that I have responded here to your public mail, will you please admit that even if the VL came to life and saved your kid from a flood you complain that it was not fast enough and that it ripped the kid's clothes. I wish some day you'd accept that your customer chose VL and you should take the opportunity to learn about it instead of still trying to make it fail so you can get them to switch to Trango. Even the best radios will have room for improvement and every decent brand should have something special that differentiates it. You work so hard to find fault you miss opportunities to become proficient in more than one brand. So accept our invitations to allow engineer visits and accept our invitations to be trained. Know what I mean? Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] vendor specs
I have yet to use an Alvarion radio or for that matter one without RSSI. However, I would think that using SNR is a perfectly reasonable way to align a link. -Matt G. villarini wrote: Patrick, Rssi is very important to determine if a link is properly aligned and its achieving its link budget. Altough we don’t use alvarion(yet), we are currently researching backhaul options and the way we comission ptp links here is that we run the calcs on radio mobile and spreedsheet to determine the link budget in advance to implementation. Snr won’t help much there... Gino -Original Message- From: Patrick Leary[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 9/24/06 11:32:47 AM To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Brad, Software controlled dual polarity might be nice. Not sure why you consistently harp on us though since no one else has it either other than your longtime preferred vendor. I am not as convinced about your complaint about RSSI. Is it just used to RSSI like being used to feet in stead of meters. But also, isn't RSSI less sophisticated and a less useful number than SNR since it is only an indication of receive signal without discounting noise? SNR provides a more accurate representation of wanted signal since it discounts for unwanted noise. Not sure of your complaint about the RJ45. No one else remarks about it and we don't have issues with water intrusion. In other words, it works well. If the opening was enlarged you increase the potential for water intrusion. Following the color code? Yes, as an old cabling guy, I would agree. But I am pleased to note that one is really running out of things to harp about when one continually highlights this a major deficiency. So now that I have responded here to your public mail, will you please admit that even if the VL came to life and saved your kid from a flood you complain that it was not fast enough and that it ripped the kid's clothes. I wish some day you'd accept that your customer chose VL and you should take the opportunity to learn about it instead of still trying to make it fail so you can get them to switch to Trango. Even the best radios will have room for improvement and every decent brand should have something special that differentiates it. You work so hard to find fault you miss opportunities to become proficient in more than one brand. So accept our invitations to allow engineer visits and accept our invitations to be trained. Know what I mean? Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs
I should have also noted that per the info below, most Alvarion operators simply have a policy that they will only connect subscribers for whom a minimum number of the green LEDs will fire and hold. For example, having 4 for of the 8 green LEDs light should get you a link with the best mod level, but 5 will do that plus give you a margin of about 8dB. It is a simple thing once you get used to it, which does not take long. Remember, there is no standard way to show these things, but Id argue that what we show is more complete and real in terms of link quality. Just showing RSSI would dump it down, wouldnt it? Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 9:24 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Right, but the LED bar on the CPE can be used to do that. I mean, isn't SNR more complete than just RSSI, meaning if your SNR is good than the RSSI is by default good. Anyway, I have never heard of any moderately experienced VL user say the units did not convey enough info to easily establish a link and understand the quality of the connection. Consider that with the CPE VL radio the LEDs will show: WLAN link light- Solid Green Unit is associated with an AU, no wireless link activity Blinking Green Data received or transmitted on the wireless link, blinking rate is proportional to wireless traffic rate Off Wireless link is disabled Status light Solid Green Power is available and self-test passed Blinking Amber Testing (not ready for operation) Red Self-test failed fatal error Ethernet light Solid Green Ethernet link between the indoor and outdoor units is detected, no activity Blinking Green Ethernet connectivity is OK, with traffic on the port. Blinking rate proportional to traffic rate Red No Ethernet connectivity between the indoor and outdoor units SNR bar Red LED: Signal is too low (SNR4 dB) Orange LED: Signal is too high (SNR 50 dB) 8 green LEDs: Quality of the received signal (green LEDs translate per below) LED 1 (red) is On - Signal is too low (SNR 4 dB) LED 2 (green) is On - SNR 4 dB LEDs 2 to 3 (green) are On - SNR 8 dB LEDs 2 to 4 (green) are On - SNR 13 dB LEDs 2 to 5 (green) are On - SNR 19 dB LEDs 2 to 6 (green) are On - SNR 26 dB LEDs 2 to 7 (green) are On - SNR 31 dB LEDs 2 to 8 (green) are On - SNR 38 dB LEDs 2 to 9 (green) are On - SNR 44 dB LEDs 2 to 9 (green) and 10 (orange) are On Signal is too high (SNR 50 dB) Mod level : Sensitivity : Min. SNR (this chart for 20MHz channel) 1 : -89 dBm : 6 dB 2 : -88 dBm : 7 dB 3 : -86 dBm : 9 dB 4 : -84 dBm : 11 dB 5 : -81 dBm : 14 dB 6 : -77 dBm : 18 dB 7 : -73 dBm : 22 dB 8 : -71 dBm : 23 dB Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of G. villarini Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 8:48 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Patrick, Rssi is very important to determine if a link is properly aligned and its achieving its link budget. Altough we dont use alvarion(yet), we are currently researching backhaul options and the way we comission ptp links here is that we run the calcs on radio mobile and spreedsheet to determine the link budget in advance to implementation. Snr wont help much there... Gino -Original Message- From: Patrick Leary[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 9/24/06 11:32:47 AM To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Brad, Software controlled dual polarity might be nice. Not sure why you consistently harp on us though since no one else has it either other than your longtime preferred vendor. I am not as convinced about your complaint about RSSI. Is it just used to RSSI like being used to feet in stead of meters. But also, isn't RSSI less sophisticated and a less useful number than SNR since it is only an indication of receive signal without discounting noise? SNR provides a more accurate representation of wanted signal since it discounts for unwanted noise. Not sure of your complaint about the RJ45. No one else remarks about it and we don't have issues with water intrusion. In other words, it works well. If the opening was enlarged you increase the potential for water intrusion. Following the color code? Yes, as an old cabling guy, I would agree. But I am pleased to note that one is really running out of things to harp about when one continually highlights this a major deficiency. So now that I have responded here to your public mail, will you please admit that even if the VL came to life and saved your kid from a flood you complain that it was not fast enough
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs
The problem with SNR for alignment purposes is that you are dealing with a variable in noise, with rssi you work with fixed numbers. Im not dissing SNR, it is extremely important, But for example, in order to trouble shoot a link let say I install a Link and Im seeing a a SNR of 6 on this link,how the heck can I determine if the antenna is miss aligned or the noise floor is very high ??? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 12:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Right, but the LED bar on the CPE can be used to do that. I mean, isn't SNR more complete than just RSSI, meaning if your SNR is good than the RSSI is by default good. Anyway, I have never heard of any moderately experienced VL user say the units did not convey enough info to easily establish a link and understand the quality of the connection. Consider that with the CPE VL radio the LEDs will show: WLAN link light- Solid Green Unit is associated with an AU, no wireless link activity Blinking Green Data received or transmitted on the wireless link, blinking rate is proportional to wireless traffic rate Off Wireless link is disabled Status light Solid Green Power is available and self-test passed Blinking Amber Testing (not ready for operation) Red Self-test failed fatal error Ethernet light Solid Green Ethernet link between the indoor and outdoor units is detected, no activity Blinking Green Ethernet connectivity is OK, with traffic on the port. Blinking rate proportional to traffic rate Red No Ethernet connectivity between the indoor and outdoor units SNR bar Red LED: Signal is too low (SNR4 dB) Orange LED: Signal is too high (SNR 50 dB) 8 green LEDs: Quality of the received signal (green LEDs translate per below) LED 1 (red) is On - Signal is too low (SNR 4 dB) LED 2 (green) is On - SNR 4 dB LEDs 2 to 3 (green) are On - SNR 8 dB LEDs 2 to 4 (green) are On - SNR 13 dB LEDs 2 to 5 (green) are On - SNR 19 dB LEDs 2 to 6 (green) are On - SNR 26 dB LEDs 2 to 7 (green) are On - SNR 31 dB LEDs 2 to 8 (green) are On - SNR 38 dB LEDs 2 to 9 (green) are On - SNR 44 dB LEDs 2 to 9 (green) and 10 (orange) are On Signal is too high (SNR 50 dB) Mod level : Sensitivity : Min. SNR (this chart for 20MHz channel) 1 : -89 dBm : 6 dB 2 : -88 dBm : 7 dB 3 : -86 dBm : 9 dB 4 : -84 dBm : 11 dB 5 : -81 dBm : 14 dB 6 : -77 dBm : 18 dB 7 : -73 dBm : 22 dB 8 : -71 dBm : 23 dB Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of G. villarini Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 8:48 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Patrick, Rssi is very important to determine if a link is properly aligned and its achieving its link budget. Altough we dont use alvarion(yet), we are currently researching backhaul options and the way we comission ptp links here is that we run the calcs on radio mobile and spreedsheet to determine the link budget in advance to implementation. Snr wont help much there... Gino -Original Message- From: Patrick Leary[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 9/24/06 11:32:47 AM To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Brad, Software controlled dual polarity might be nice. Not sure why you consistently harp on us though since no one else has it either other than your longtime preferred vendor. I am not as convinced about your complaint about RSSI. Is it just used to RSSI like being used to feet in stead of meters. But also, isn't RSSI less sophisticated and a less useful number than SNR since it is only an indication of receive signal without discounting noise? SNR provides a more accurate representation of wanted signal since it discounts for unwanted noise. Not sure of your complaint about the RJ45. No one else remarks about it and we don't have issues with water intrusion. In other words, it works well. If the opening was enlarged you increase the potential for water intrusion. Following the color code? Yes, as an old cabling guy, I would agree. But I am pleased to note that one is really running out of things to harp about when one continually highlights this a major deficiency. So now that I have responded here to your public mail, will you please admit that even if the VL came to life and saved your kid from a flood you complain that it was not fast enough and that it ripped the kid's clothes. I wish some day you'd accept that your customer chose VL and you should take the opportunity to learn about it instead of still trying to make it fail so you can get them to switch
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs
Exactly, and this is can be compounded on a new installation as you might be seeing noise or could it be you are just misaligned? Techs are creatures of habit. They may think 4 LED bars is all that is ever needed because thats what they typically see. The next install they throw up a radio and get their usual 4 LED bars and dont realize 5 or more is obtainable. Then a rainstorm comes in along with a 20F drop in temperature and the link goes to crap because in fact they aligned the radio on a side lobe. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gino A. Villarini Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 11:48 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs The problem with SNR for alignment purposes is that you are dealing with a variable in noise, with rssi you work with fixed numbers. Im not dissing SNR, it is extremely important, But for example, in order to trouble shoot a link let say I install a Link and Im seeing a a SNR of 6 on this link,how the heck can I determine if the antenna is miss aligned or the noise floor is very high ??? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 12:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Right, but the LED bar on the CPE can be used to do that. I mean, isn't SNR more complete than just RSSI, meaning if your SNR is good than the RSSI is by default good. Anyway, I have never heard of any moderately experienced VL user say the units did not convey enough info to easily establish a link and understand the quality of the connection. Consider that with the CPE VL radio the LEDs will show: WLAN link light- Solid Green Unit is associated with an AU, no wireless link activity Blinking Green Data received or transmitted on the wireless link, blinking rate is proportional to wireless traffic rate Off Wireless link is disabled Status light Solid Green Power is available and self-test passed Blinking Amber Testing (not ready for operation) Red Self-test failed fatal error Ethernet light Solid Green Ethernet link between the indoor and outdoor units is detected, no activity Blinking Green Ethernet connectivity is OK, with traffic on the port. Blinking rate proportional to traffic rate Red No Ethernet connectivity between the indoor and outdoor units SNR bar Red LED: Signal is too low (SNR4 dB) Orange LED: Signal is too high (SNR 50 dB) 8 green LEDs: Quality of the received signal (green LEDs translate per below) LED 1 (red) is On - Signal is too low (SNR 4 dB) LED 2 (green) is On - SNR 4 dB LEDs 2 to 3 (green) are On - SNR 8 dB LEDs 2 to 4 (green) are On - SNR 13 dB LEDs 2 to 5 (green) are On - SNR 19 dB LEDs 2 to 6 (green) are On - SNR 26 dB LEDs 2 to 7 (green) are On - SNR 31 dB LEDs 2 to 8 (green) are On - SNR 38 dB LEDs 2 to 9 (green) are On - SNR 44 dB LEDs 2 to 9 (green) and 10 (orange) are On Signal is too high (SNR 50 dB) Mod level : Sensitivity : Min. SNR (this chart for 20MHz channel) 1 : -89 dBm : 6 dB 2 : -88 dBm : 7 dB 3 : -86 dBm : 9 dB 4 : -84 dBm : 11 dB 5 : -81 dBm : 14 dB 6 : -77 dBm : 18 dB 7 : -73 dBm : 22 dB 8 : -71 dBm : 23 dB Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of G. villarini Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 8:48 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Patrick, Rssi is very important to determine if a link is properly aligned and its achieving its link budget. Altough we dont use alvarion(yet), we are currently researching backhaul options and the way we comission ptp links here is that we run the calcs on radio mobile and spreedsheet to determine the link budget in advance to implementation. Snr wont help much there... Gino -Original Message- From: Patrick Leary[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 9/24/06 11:32:47 AM To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Brad, Software controlled dual polarity might be nice. Not sure why you consistently harp on us though since no one else has it either other than your longtime preferred vendor. I am not as convinced about your complaint about RSSI. Is it just used to RSSI like being used to feet in stead of meters. But also, isn't RSSI less sophisticated and a less useful number than SNR since it is only an indication of receive signal without discounting noise? SNR provides a more accurate representation of wanted signal since it discounts for unwanted noise. Not sure of your complaint about the RJ45. No one else remarks about it and we don't have issues with water intrusion
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs
If the general concensus is that RSSI is a must, then I will try to convince PM to add such a reading. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gino A. Villarini Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 9:48 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs The problem with SNR for alignment purposes is that you are dealing with a variable in noise, with rssi you work with fixed numbers. Im not dissing SNR, it is extremely important, But for example, in order to trouble shoot a link let say I install a Link and Im seeing a a SNR of 6 on this link,how the heck can I determine if the antenna is miss aligned or the noise floor is very high ??? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 12:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Right, but the LED bar on the CPE can be used to do that. I mean, isn't SNR more complete than just RSSI, meaning if your SNR is good than the RSSI is by default good. Anyway, I have never heard of any moderately experienced VL user say the units did not convey enough info to easily establish a link and understand the quality of the connection. Consider that with the CPE VL radio the LEDs will show: WLAN link light- Solid Green Unit is associated with an AU, no wireless link activity Blinking Green Data received or transmitted on the wireless link, blinking rate is proportional to wireless traffic rate Off Wireless link is disabled Status light Solid Green Power is available and self-test passed Blinking Amber Testing (not ready for operation) Red Self-test failed fatal error Ethernet light Solid Green Ethernet link between the indoor and outdoor units is detected, no activity Blinking Green Ethernet connectivity is OK, with traffic on the port. Blinking rate proportional to traffic rate Red No Ethernet connectivity between the indoor and outdoor units SNR bar Red LED: Signal is too low (SNR4 dB) Orange LED: Signal is too high (SNR 50 dB) 8 green LEDs: Quality of the received signal (green LEDs translate per below) LED 1 (red) is On - Signal is too low (SNR 4 dB) LED 2 (green) is On - SNR 4 dB LEDs 2 to 3 (green) are On - SNR 8 dB LEDs 2 to 4 (green) are On - SNR 13 dB LEDs 2 to 5 (green) are On - SNR 19 dB LEDs 2 to 6 (green) are On - SNR 26 dB LEDs 2 to 7 (green) are On - SNR 31 dB LEDs 2 to 8 (green) are On - SNR 38 dB LEDs 2 to 9 (green) are On - SNR 44 dB LEDs 2 to 9 (green) and 10 (orange) are On Signal is too high (SNR 50 dB) Mod level : Sensitivity : Min. SNR (this chart for 20MHz channel) 1 : -89 dBm : 6 dB 2 : -88 dBm : 7 dB 3 : -86 dBm : 9 dB 4 : -84 dBm : 11 dB 5 : -81 dBm : 14 dB 6 : -77 dBm : 18 dB 7 : -73 dBm : 22 dB 8 : -71 dBm : 23 dB Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of G. villarini Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 8:48 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Patrick, Rssi is very important to determine if a link is properly aligned and its achieving its link budget. Altough we dont use alvarion(yet), we are currently researching backhaul options and the way we comission ptp links here is that we run the calcs on radio mobile and spreedsheet to determine the link budget in advance to implementation. Snr wont help much there... Gino -Original Message- From: Patrick Leary[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 9/24/06 11:32:47 AM To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Brad, Software controlled dual polarity might be nice. Not sure why you consistently harp on us though since no one else has it either other than your longtime preferred vendor. I am not as convinced about your complaint about RSSI. Is it just used to RSSI like being used to feet in stead of meters. But also, isn't RSSI less sophisticated and a less useful number than SNR since it is only an indication of receive signal without discounting noise? SNR provides a more accurate representation of wanted signal since it discounts for unwanted noise. Not sure of your complaint about the RJ45. No one else remarks about it and we don't have issues with water intrusion. In other words, it works well. If the opening was enlarged you increase the potential for water intrusion. Following the color code? Yes, as an old cabling guy, I would agree. But I am pleased to note that one is really running out of things to harp about when one continually highlights this a major deficiency
Re: [WISPA] vendor specs
Not to beat the horse here but I think having SNR, RSSI and Noise readings are all things people should have in an advanced platform. Granted if you have any two you can get the third but just having it all right there seems logical to me. I am guessing the system could easily derive all three as it has to know the RSSI and Noise level to get SNR to begin with. A person should use all three when peaking a link to see where potential noise sources are located, how much signal you can max out at and where the best SNR is. The only time more information is not better is when you have an installer who does not comprehend the differences in all three readings and could become confused. I would not want that guy dong my VL links to begin with though. I do understand the differences and inter-relationships between SNR, RSSI and Noise level and I would like to see all three when I set a link. I am guessing this would take the Alvarion firmware writers about 2 minutes to add that into the next firmware revision. I am not exaggerating here. I am sure the code to do this is already there to produce the SNR number and a checkbox in the build options will add RSSI and Noise levels to the next revision. I tell you what Patrick, if your firmware designers say it will take more than 15 minutes to add that code then I owe you dinner at ISPCON one night. Deal? Scriv Patrick Leary wrote: If the general concensus is that RSSI is a must, then I will try to convince PM to add such a reading. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Gino A. Villarini *Sent:* Sunday, September 24, 2006 9:48 AM *To:* 'WISPA General List' *Subject:* RE: [WISPA] vendor specs The problem with SNR for alignment purposes is that you are dealing with a variable in noise, with rssi you work with fixed numbers. I’m not dissing SNR, it is extremely important, But for example, in order to trouble shoot a link … let say I install a Link and Im seeing a a SNR of 6 on this link,how the heck can I determine if the antenna is miss aligned or the noise floor is very high ??? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Patrick Leary *Sent:* Sunday, September 24, 2006 12:24 PM *To:* WISPA General List *Subject:* RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Right, but the LED bar on the CPE can be used to do that. I mean, isn't SNR more complete than just RSSI, meaning if your SNR is good than the RSSI is by default good. Anyway, I have never heard of any moderately experienced VL user say the units did not convey enough info to easily establish a link and understand the quality of the connection. Consider that with the CPE VL radio the LEDs will show: WLAN link light- · Solid Green – Unit is associated with an AU, no wireless link activity · Blinking Green – Data received or transmitted on the wireless link, blinking rate is proportional to wireless traffic rate · Off – Wireless link is disabled Status light – · Solid Green – Power is available and self-test passed · Blinking Amber – Testing (not ready for operation) · Red – Self-test failed – fatal error Ethernet light – · Solid Green – Ethernet link between the indoor and outdoor units is detected, no activity · Blinking Green – Ethernet connectivity is OK, with traffic on the port. Blinking rate proportional to traffic rate · Red – No Ethernet connectivity between the indoor and outdoor units SNR bar – · Red LED: Signal is too low (SNR4 dB) · Orange LED: Signal is too high (SNR 50 dB) · 8 green LEDs: Quality of the received signal (green LEDs translate per below) LED 1 (red) is On - Signal is too low (SNR 4 dB) LED 2 (green) is On - SNR 4 dB LEDs 2 to 3 (green) are On - SNR 8 dB LEDs 2 to 4 (green) are On - SNR 13 dB LEDs 2 to 5 (green) are On - SNR 19 dB LEDs 2 to 6 (green) are On - SNR 26 dB LEDs 2 to 7 (green) are On - SNR 31 dB LEDs 2 to 8 (green) are On - SNR 38 dB LEDs 2 to 9 (green) are On - SNR 44 dB LEDs 2 to 9 (green) and 10 (orange) are On Signal is too high (SNR 50 dB) Mod level : Sensitivity : Min. SNR (this chart for 20MHz channel) 1 : -89 dBm : 6 dB 2 : -88 dBm : 7 dB 3 : -86 dBm : 9 dB 4 : -84 dBm : 11 dB 5 : -81 dBm : 14 dB 6 : -77 dBm : 18 dB 7 : -73 dBm : 22 dB 8 : -71 dBm : 23 dB Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of G. villarini Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 8:48 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Patrick, Rssi is very important
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs
Deal. For sure I will ask them to add the reading in the firmware. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 11:14 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs Not to beat the horse here but I think having SNR, RSSI and Noise readings are all things people should have in an advanced platform. Granted if you have any two you can get the third but just having it all right there seems logical to me. I am guessing the system could easily derive all three as it has to know the RSSI and Noise level to get SNR to begin with. A person should use all three when peaking a link to see where potential noise sources are located, how much signal you can max out at and where the best SNR is. The only time more information is not better is when you have an installer who does not comprehend the differences in all three readings and could become confused. I would not want that guy dong my VL links to begin with though. I do understand the differences and inter-relationships between SNR, RSSI and Noise level and I would like to see all three when I set a link. I am guessing this would take the Alvarion firmware writers about 2 minutes to add that into the next firmware revision. I am not exaggerating here. I am sure the code to do this is already there to produce the SNR number and a checkbox in the build options will add RSSI and Noise levels to the next revision. I tell you what Patrick, if your firmware designers say it will take more than 15 minutes to add that code then I owe you dinner at ISPCON one night. Deal? Scriv Patrick Leary wrote: If the general concensus is that RSSI is a must, then I will try to convince PM to add such a reading. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Gino A. Villarini *Sent:* Sunday, September 24, 2006 9:48 AM *To:* 'WISPA General List' *Subject:* RE: [WISPA] vendor specs The problem with SNR for alignment purposes is that you are dealing with a variable in noise, with rssi you work with fixed numbers. I'm not dissing SNR, it is extremely important, But for example, in order to trouble shoot a link ... let say I install a Link and Im seeing a a SNR of 6 on this link,how the heck can I determine if the antenna is miss aligned or the noise floor is very high ??? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Patrick Leary *Sent:* Sunday, September 24, 2006 12:24 PM *To:* WISPA General List *Subject:* RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Right, but the LED bar on the CPE can be used to do that. I mean, isn't SNR more complete than just RSSI, meaning if your SNR is good than the RSSI is by default good. Anyway, I have never heard of any moderately experienced VL user say the units did not convey enough info to easily establish a link and understand the quality of the connection. Consider that with the CPE VL radio the LEDs will show: WLAN link light- * Solid Green - Unit is associated with an AU, no wireless link activity * Blinking Green - Data received or transmitted on the wireless link, blinking rate is proportional to wireless traffic rate * Off - Wireless link is disabled Status light - * Solid Green - Power is available and self-test passed * Blinking Amber - Testing (not ready for operation) * Red - Self-test failed - fatal error Ethernet light - * Solid Green - Ethernet link between the indoor and outdoor units is detected, no activity * Blinking Green - Ethernet connectivity is OK, with traffic on the port. Blinking rate proportional to traffic rate * Red - No Ethernet connectivity between the indoor and outdoor units SNR bar - * Red LED: Signal is too low (SNR4 dB) * Orange LED: Signal is too high (SNR 50 dB) * 8 green LEDs: Quality of the received signal (green LEDs translate per below) LED 1 (red) is On - Signal is too low (SNR 4 dB) LED 2 (green) is On - SNR 4 dB LEDs 2 to 3 (green) are On - SNR 8 dB LEDs 2 to 4 (green) are On - SNR 13 dB LEDs 2 to 5 (green) are On - SNR 19 dB LEDs 2 to 6 (green) are On - SNR 26 dB LEDs 2 to 7 (green) are On - SNR 31 dB LEDs 2 to 8 (green) are On - SNR 38 dB LEDs 2 to 9 (green) are On - SNR 44 dB LEDs 2 to 9 (green) and 10 (orange) are On Signal is too high (SNR 50 dB) Mod level : Sensitivity : Min. SNR (this chart for 20MHz channel) 1 : -89 dBm : 6 dB 2 : -88 dBm : 7 dB 3 : -86 dBm : 9 dB 4 : -84 dBm
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs
Agreed, VL does have more niche features and some of those can be the sole reason VL makes the cut and other products do not. As you know VLAN support was the key feature in this particular case, but simply placing a CPE router on site will also fill that need. I'm a believer in the VL product, but there are currently a few too many basic pitfalls with the product. If I didn't care I wouldn't be posting about the VL. Let's face it this is some of the best exposure a manufacturer can ask for: users expressing improvements they would like to see implemented. The improvement requests here aren't without merit. Dual polarity and dual band capability are good ideas. There isn't any argument against it, so why not implement it? I guarantee it will result in additional VL sales. Trango has many features that VL does not currently offer in addition to the extremely important Dual Polarity ability: (1) Rx Threshold to maintain full payload capacity in noisy areas (2) Far fewer commands that require a reboot (3) Much faster reboot (4) Dual band 5.3GHz and 5.8GHz in one product (5) RSSI reading local and remote side (6) Ability to locate noise at AU or SU without interrupting traffic Considering Alvarion has a tech in the local area I wouldn't expect anything less than a free visit. Scanning the numerous emails between all of us on this topic I'm unable to find the offer. Could you forward me the exchange you are referring to? Trango offered to fly a tech out to us from across the country for free. Free is in quotations because I don't believe anything is free...you're paying for it somewhere in this case by purchasing product. grin There is more, but it's Sunday and I've got yet another 4 or 5yr old birthday party to attend! Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 12:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Re dual polarity via software, I and others have always said it would be nice. You've never heard me argue against it and you have heard me acknowledge that this is Trango's key Trango only differentiator. But we all understand that and have acknowledged it many times. Lots of things are nice, some just have higher priority than others. For every 1 thing VL may not have relative to Trango, we can probably find 10 things VL can do that Trango cannot, each of equal importance maybe to dual polarity. The ability to do VoIP well would be such a thing. Those with multipoint networks using Trango or Canopy are entirely stranded in terms of being able to do VoIP to any reasonable scale. Come on Brad. I was personally involved in some of the threads where I've seen my people (or me) attempt to answer every question you have had. I know Keith's management has offered to send him out there numerous times for free. I was pleased to be able to visit to understand what your customer was wanting to do. By the way, training does not have to be $1,000 a head, as you know. We offer people to pay for the whole class than they can sell their own seats for whatever they want. We actually have some customers that use this as a profit center. Also, respectfully, isn't one's willingness to get trained a good measure of one's seriousness? And what professional training have you had for free that was wroth anything? Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 9:53 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Wow Patrick, I'm surprised of your answer. I think I've made it abundantly clear over the years I'm open source when it comes to equipment and choose the best solution for the application at hand regardless of brand. I've certainly been more a critique of Trango and many other products than I have been of Alvarion VL. That can't be disputed. I'm just surprised you have such thin skin regarding constructive criticism. Regardless of what you believe, SNR is NOT the same thing as a RSSI reading. RSSI is pretty much what makes the world go 'round in the radio industry. Not sure why Alvarion continues to dig in their heals over such a simple item that even your own techs agree should be provided. Holy cow Patrick admits software DP might be nice! This is a first and shows progress is achievable...baby steps Patrick, baby steps. Now let's put the idea front center with the Alvarion design team and as they say git 'er done! I think you know as well as I do the size of the weather seal was an oversight in design. The idea that 1 or 2 mm larger in size will make the weather seal less effective is ridiculous. You can do better that that. Not sure what you mean about my customer chose VL etc, etc. The end user client is ours...the last thing I want to do is have it fail. The sale was for 2MB/2MB FDX and frankly the VL can't do that every day all day
Re: [WISPA] vendor specs
Gino, The prices you state seem way low. I've only see nthat on temporar or Ebay type buying. Is their a CONSISTENT source for $225 and $550 pricing in less than 25 qty? I believe that anyone that is required to buy in qty higher than 25 to get best price is getting overly burdened and likely loosing their savings after looking at all cash flow costs. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 11:05 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Let me comment on this #Canopy 5.7 AP - $970 (Advantage $1,974) is this MRSP ? you can buy this the AP for $800 +/- , Advantage for $1500 #C/I advantage #Fixed up/down ratio Add GPS Sync, Feature rich firmware, NMS Software, Strong support, Good promos, Only Manufacturer to offer price conscious upgrade program, third party products (dishes , gps syncs) ect ect ect #$490 CPE ($737 advantage) .. yikes with CPE you have 3 options : Canopy Lite (1mbps) $170 +/- 25 packs Canopy (14 Mbps Burst) $225 +/- Canopy Advantage (14 Mbps sustained ) $550 ( way over priced IMHO ) Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 10:31 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] vendor specs Hi, I changed the subject line to reflect more the direction of this discussion (Trango vs. Canopy vs. Alvarion)... ;) This is just off the top of my head, and I would love to see more data on any of these radios: Trango 5830AP - $1,079 retail Dual polarity 10Mbps (auto up/down ratio) Easy management (CLI and web) $149 CPE ($199 up to 10 miles) Canopy 5.7 AP - $970 (Advantage $1,974) C/I advantage Fixed up/down ratio $490 CPE ($737 advantage) Alvarion VL AP - $4,500 (rough retail) 36Mbps and 40,000pps $1,000 CPE For whatever it's worth, we have over 2,500 CPE in the air and over 2,000 are Trango (900mhz, 2.4ghz, 5.8ghz). The Trango product has worked very well for us, and we are located on some mountaintop repeater locations that literally have over 100 antennas (paging, HAM, WISPs, etc.) within 100 yards of each other. Our biggest problem is frequency availability at all (regardless of radio choice)... we have a 2.4ghz AP at a repeater station that is full. We attempted to install a second sector today and ran a site survey at this location across the entire 2.4ghz band, the average signals ranged from -25 to -55 at the best. :( Travis Microserv Jon Langeler wrote: Tom, I have nothing to gain or lose by telling you what we've not only extensivley tested but also experienced over 6 years. We started using canopy since it began shipping and at least 100 trango SU between 3 different towers since beta. I just hate to see fellow wisp protest that there isn't a good product and struggle when their actually is a pretty darn good one...and on top of that has an upgrade path in it's vision, it keeps getting better. ARQ does not affect C/I like FEC does for example. When you say ARQ is fixing any resiliance problems that may be true. But you'll also suffer from increased latency and less throughput during those retransmissions. Not good if you want to support VOIP and keep customers happy. Having a low C/I means the system will be stable more often and maintain a lower retrans. Trango's ARQ is not even an option in the 5800 model which is what you and I probably have a decent percentage of in our Trango networks. Having a low C/I requirement affects other things like increases the range of a product. I'm laying out facts, you can convince yourself of whatever you want... Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Tom DeReggi wrote: Nice try, but I've found that comment to be not at all true. I have often chosen to avoid canopy user's channels, but because I am a good WISP neighbor, not because I had to. Why fight if you can cooperate. On a SPEC sheet Canopy does boast the lowest C/I. But Trango's specified C/I was reported before considering ARQ. And Trango has always underspec'd their spec sheets. C/I is not nearly as relevant as SNR resilience anyway. With Arq, we've easilly ran links as low as 4 db above the average noise floor, reliably. There is VERY little difference between the Trango and Canopy C/I in real world usage. The Trango just adds more polarities as more options to work around it, when needed. One of the reasons we like Trango is its resilience to noise, that gives us the abilty to fight it out and stand our ground. The Foxes w/ DISH, have excellent ARQ and resilience to Noise, within their range and LOS. When we start to have trouble with Trango, is when we start to push the limits of the technology. Its a LOS technology that we attempt NLOS with. My arguement is also not that we
Re: [WISPA] vendor specs
Trango is no where near $400 for Atlas Foxes. Trango's Atlas Fox's distance without dish is just about the same as the standard Canopy CPE (same DBI antenna). Remember that Trango lists retail on their site to protest the WISP. Low volume WISP special pricing is granted to any WISP. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Anthony Will [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 11:17 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs Your numbers are a bit off on the canopy and when i looked on the trango site it looks more in the range of $400 per unit at 30 pack pricing for trango's. I believe your getting that price but at what qualities? I have a couple hundred in the air and I have Midwest Wireless the 5th largest WISP in the country playing in my back yard using Alvarions junk BA2 system all over the place. And I also have a local ILEC, Stonebridge and the remains of Xtratyme all over the rest of my coverage area. My PtmP system is all 900mhz and 2.4 ghz using omni's and I dont have any issues with interference. The longest customer link I have on 900mhz is 18.5 miles and the longest 2.4 link is 12 miles. I use omni's so that I dont completely destroy the airwaves for others that are playing in the same sand box. Canopy pricing: AP = $898 (Advantage $1554) Single pricing CPE = $267 (Advantage $402 ) 25pack pricing Add $40 a unit for 15 mile range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified) CPE = $216 (Advantage $324) 100 pack pricing Add $25 a unit for 15 mile range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified) Anthony Will Broadband Corp. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I changed the subject line to reflect more the direction of this discussion (Trango vs. Canopy vs. Alvarion)... ;) This is just off the top of my head, and I would love to see more data on any of these radios: Trango 5830AP - $1,079 retail Dual polarity 10Mbps (auto up/down ratio) Easy management (CLI and web) $149 CPE ($199 up to 10 miles) Canopy 5.7 AP - $970 (Advantage $1,974) C/I advantage Fixed up/down ratio $490 CPE ($737 advantage) Alvarion VL AP - $4,500 (rough retail) 36Mbps and 40,000pps $1,000 CPE For whatever it's worth, we have over 2,500 CPE in the air and over 2,000 are Trango (900mhz, 2.4ghz, 5.8ghz). The Trango product has worked very well for us, and we are located on some mountaintop repeater locations that literally have over 100 antennas (paging, HAM, WISPs, etc.) within 100 yards of each other. Our biggest problem is frequency availability at all (regardless of radio choice)... we have a 2.4ghz AP at a repeater station that is full. We attempted to install a second sector today and ran a site survey at this location across the entire 2.4ghz band, the average signals ranged from -25 to -55 at the best. :( Travis Microserv Jon Langeler wrote: Tom, I have nothing to gain or lose by telling you what we've not only extensivley tested but also experienced over 6 years. We started using canopy since it began shipping and at least 100 trango SU between 3 different towers since beta. I just hate to see fellow wisp protest that there isn't a good product and struggle when their actually is a pretty darn good one...and on top of that has an upgrade path in it's vision, it keeps getting better. ARQ does not affect C/I like FEC does for example. When you say ARQ is fixing any resiliance problems that may be true. But you'll also suffer from increased latency and less throughput during those retransmissions. Not good if you want to support VOIP and keep customers happy. Having a low C/I means the system will be stable more often and maintain a lower retrans. Trango's ARQ is not even an option in the 5800 model which is what you and I probably have a decent percentage of in our Trango networks. Having a low C/I requirement affects other things like increases the range of a product. I'm laying out facts, you can convince yourself of whatever you want... Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Tom DeReggi wrote: Nice try, but I've found that comment to be not at all true. I have often chosen to avoid canopy user's channels, but because I am a good WISP neighbor, not because I had to. Why fight if you can cooperate. On a SPEC sheet Canopy does boast the lowest C/I. But Trango's specified C/I was reported before considering ARQ. And Trango has always underspec'd their spec sheets. C/I is not nearly as relevant as SNR resilience anyway. With Arq, we've easilly ran links as low as 4 db above the average noise floor, reliably. There is VERY little difference between the Trango and Canopy C/I in real world usage. The Trango just adds more polarities as more options to work around it, when needed. One of the reasons we like Trango is its resilience to noise, that gives us the abilty to fight it out and stand our ground. The Foxes w/ DISH, have
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs
There are arguments against dual band support, as we have discussed before, though you ridicule our sincere reasoning and call it BS (which is why I am cautious about discussing these things with you in public). As I said to you, our RD folks tell me that RF components that span a broad frequency range have poorer performance than those designed for more narrow frequency ranges. I don't have a Ph.D in EE or other science disciplines, so I'm not going to argue with them. And as I have further explained, that poorer edge performance may or may not be worth giving up to get the benefit of dual band. That part is an economic question, not a technical one. At this point, our company has made the decision that the loss in performance is not worth the benefits. And yes, our RD DO tend to be RF purists (another thing you ridicule). That reality has its good and bad points. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 12:24 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Agreed, VL does have more niche features and some of those can be the sole reason VL makes the cut and other products do not. As you know VLAN support was the key feature in this particular case, but simply placing a CPE router on site will also fill that need. I'm a believer in the VL product, but there are currently a few too many basic pitfalls with the product. If I didn't care I wouldn't be posting about the VL. Let's face it this is some of the best exposure a manufacturer can ask for: users expressing improvements they would like to see implemented. The improvement requests here aren't without merit. Dual polarity and dual band capability are good ideas. There isn't any argument against it, so why not implement it? I guarantee it will result in additional VL sales. Trango has many features that VL does not currently offer in addition to the extremely important Dual Polarity ability: (1) Rx Threshold to maintain full payload capacity in noisy areas (2) Far fewer commands that require a reboot (3) Much faster reboot (4) Dual band 5.3GHz and 5.8GHz in one product (5) RSSI reading local and remote side (6) Ability to locate noise at AU or SU without interrupting traffic Considering Alvarion has a tech in the local area I wouldn't expect anything less than a free visit. Scanning the numerous emails between all of us on this topic I'm unable to find the offer. Could you forward me the exchange you are referring to? Trango offered to fly a tech out to us from across the country for free. Free is in quotations because I don't believe anything is free...you're paying for it somewhere in this case by purchasing product. grin There is more, but it's Sunday and I've got yet another 4 or 5yr old birthday party to attend! Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 12:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Re dual polarity via software, I and others have always said it would be nice. You've never heard me argue against it and you have heard me acknowledge that this is Trango's key Trango only differentiator. But we all understand that and have acknowledged it many times. Lots of things are nice, some just have higher priority than others. For every 1 thing VL may not have relative to Trango, we can probably find 10 things VL can do that Trango cannot, each of equal importance maybe to dual polarity. The ability to do VoIP well would be such a thing. Those with multipoint networks using Trango or Canopy are entirely stranded in terms of being able to do VoIP to any reasonable scale. Come on Brad. I was personally involved in some of the threads where I've seen my people (or me) attempt to answer every question you have had. I know Keith's management has offered to send him out there numerous times for free. I was pleased to be able to visit to understand what your customer was wanting to do. By the way, training does not have to be $1,000 a head, as you know. We offer people to pay for the whole class than they can sell their own seats for whatever they want. We actually have some customers that use this as a profit center. Also, respectfully, isn't one's willingness to get trained a good measure of one's seriousness? And what professional training have you had for free that was wroth anything? Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 9:53 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Wow Patrick, I'm surprised of your answer. I think I've made it abundantly clear over the years I'm open source when it comes to equipment and choose the best solution for the application
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs
So what is the onesy-twosy price of a Trango Atlas with an extended range antenna? What is the price for a Canopy Advantage CPE with extended range? I have plenty of data I've found, but there seems to be some wide discrepancy here among you folks. How about total cost for a Canopy cluster with the BAM, GPS synch, and other little extra things you need for it to be complete? Also, I've heard a number of you talk about availability of third party improvements like it is a benefit of the Canopy system. Seriously, isn't that more a reflection of the glaring gaps in Canopy that have led smart WISP entrepreneurs to capitalize? Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 1:13 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs Trango is no where near $400 for Atlas Foxes. Trango's Atlas Fox's distance without dish is just about the same as the standard Canopy CPE (same DBI antenna). Remember that Trango lists retail on their site to protest the WISP. Low volume WISP special pricing is granted to any WISP. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Anthony Will [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 11:17 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs Your numbers are a bit off on the canopy and when i looked on the trango site it looks more in the range of $400 per unit at 30 pack pricing for trango's. I believe your getting that price but at what qualities? I have a couple hundred in the air and I have Midwest Wireless the 5th largest WISP in the country playing in my back yard using Alvarions junk BA2 system all over the place. And I also have a local ILEC, Stonebridge and the remains of Xtratyme all over the rest of my coverage area. My PtmP system is all 900mhz and 2.4 ghz using omni's and I dont have any issues with interference. The longest customer link I have on 900mhz is 18.5 miles and the longest 2.4 link is 12 miles. I use omni's so that I dont completely destroy the airwaves for others that are playing in the same sand box. Canopy pricing: AP = $898 (Advantage $1554) Single pricing CPE = $267 (Advantage $402 ) 25pack pricing Add $40 a unit for 15 mile range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified) CPE = $216 (Advantage $324) 100 pack pricing Add $25 a unit for 15 mile range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified) Anthony Will Broadband Corp. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I changed the subject line to reflect more the direction of this discussion (Trango vs. Canopy vs. Alvarion)... ;) This is just off the top of my head, and I would love to see more data on any of these radios: Trango 5830AP - $1,079 retail Dual polarity 10Mbps (auto up/down ratio) Easy management (CLI and web) $149 CPE ($199 up to 10 miles) Canopy 5.7 AP - $970 (Advantage $1,974) C/I advantage Fixed up/down ratio $490 CPE ($737 advantage) Alvarion VL AP - $4,500 (rough retail) 36Mbps and 40,000pps $1,000 CPE For whatever it's worth, we have over 2,500 CPE in the air and over 2,000 are Trango (900mhz, 2.4ghz, 5.8ghz). The Trango product has worked very well for us, and we are located on some mountaintop repeater locations that literally have over 100 antennas (paging, HAM, WISPs, etc.) within 100 yards of each other. Our biggest problem is frequency availability at all (regardless of radio choice)... we have a 2.4ghz AP at a repeater station that is full. We attempted to install a second sector today and ran a site survey at this location across the entire 2.4ghz band, the average signals ranged from -25 to -55 at the best. :( Travis Microserv Jon Langeler wrote: Tom, I have nothing to gain or lose by telling you what we've not only extensivley tested but also experienced over 6 years. We started using canopy since it began shipping and at least 100 trango SU between 3 different towers since beta. I just hate to see fellow wisp protest that there isn't a good product and struggle when their actually is a pretty darn good one...and on top of that has an upgrade path in it's vision, it keeps getting better. ARQ does not affect C/I like FEC does for example. When you say ARQ is fixing any resiliance problems that may be true. But you'll also suffer from increased latency and less throughput during those retransmissions. Not good if you want to support VOIP and keep customers happy. Having a low C/I means the system will be stable more often and maintain a lower retrans. Trango's ARQ is not even an option in the 5800 model which is what you and I probably have a decent percentage of in our Trango networks. Having a low C/I requirement affects other things like increases the range of a product
Re: [WISPA] vendor specs
A quick look at Trango's and Alvarion's data sheets seem to show that Alvarion has a higher receive sensitivity, which would seem to confirm your statement. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: There are arguments against dual band support, as we have discussed before, though you ridicule our sincere reasoning and call it BS (which is why I am cautious about discussing these things with you in public). As I said to you, our RD folks tell me that RF components that span a broad frequency range have poorer performance than those designed for more narrow frequency ranges. I don't have a Ph.D in EE or other science disciplines, so I'm not going to argue with them. And as I have further explained, that poorer edge performance may or may not be worth giving up to get the benefit of dual band. That part is an economic question, not a technical one. At this point, our company has made the decision that the loss in performance is not worth the benefits. And yes, our RD DO tend to be RF purists (another thing you ridicule). That reality has its good and bad points. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 12:24 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Agreed, VL does have more niche features and some of those can be the sole reason VL makes the cut and other products do not. As you know VLAN support was the key feature in this particular case, but simply placing a CPE router on site will also fill that need. I'm a believer in the VL product, but there are currently a few too many basic pitfalls with the product. If I didn't care I wouldn't be posting about the VL. Let's face it this is some of the best exposure a manufacturer can ask for: users expressing improvements they would like to see implemented. The improvement requests here aren't without merit. Dual polarity and dual band capability are good ideas. There isn't any argument against it, so why not implement it? I guarantee it will result in additional VL sales. Trango has many features that VL does not currently offer in addition to the extremely important Dual Polarity ability: (1) Rx Threshold to maintain full payload capacity in noisy areas (2) Far fewer commands that require a reboot (3) Much faster reboot (4) Dual band 5.3GHz and 5.8GHz in one product (5) RSSI reading local and remote side (6) Ability to locate noise at AU or SU without interrupting traffic Considering Alvarion has a tech in the local area I wouldn't expect anything less than a free visit. Scanning the numerous emails between all of us on this topic I'm unable to find the offer. Could you forward me the exchange you are referring to? Trango offered to fly a tech out to us from across the country for free. Free is in quotations because I don't believe anything is free...you're paying for it somewhere in this case by purchasing product. grin There is more, but it's Sunday and I've got yet another 4 or 5yr old birthday party to attend! Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 12:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Re dual polarity via software, I and others have always said it would be nice. You've never heard me argue against it and you have heard me acknowledge that this is Trango's key Trango only differentiator. But we all understand that and have acknowledged it many times. Lots of things are nice, some just have higher priority than others. For every 1 thing VL may not have relative to Trango, we can probably find 10 things VL can do that Trango cannot, each of equal importance maybe to dual polarity. The ability to do VoIP well would be such a thing. Those with multipoint networks using Trango or Canopy are entirely stranded in terms of being able to do VoIP to any reasonable scale. Come on Brad. I was personally involved in some of the threads where I've seen my people (or me) attempt to answer every question you have had. I know Keith's management has offered to send him out there numerous times for free. I was pleased to be able to visit to understand what your customer was wanting to do. By the way, training does not have to be $1,000 a head, as you know. We offer people to pay for the whole class than they can sell their own seats for whatever they want. We actually have some customers that use this as a profit center. Also, respectfully, isn't one's willingness to get trained a good measure of one's seriousness? And what professional training have you had for free that was wroth anything? Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 9:53 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs
Re: [WISPA] vendor specs
Easy to Manage Smart firmware (but lean to WISP relevent features). Impossible to misconfigure. Best VOIP throughput. Excellent channel to buy from OEM offers: Not technically legal Many headaches (buying, availabilty, configuration and licensing quirks, etc) Less consistent service (WiFi protocols) Not the best firmware or troubleshooting tools, but. Unbelievable Price! Additional RF links from one unit, for just $50. (This is big, saving entire radio costs and labor costs, and preventing custom box connection systems that are expensive for relaying). One of these OEM systems will allow a WISP to get to more subscribers quicker than any other system on the market. (higher speeds, and avoiding NLOS by relaying). If I were Alvarion, I'd be offering radios with Dual Ethernet ports, and/or Dual radios, so WISPs had more flexibilty. I'd argue that its harder to give up the benefits of OEM Flexibility than OEM price, for ambitious operators. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 12:10 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs Trango offers many different CPE (5830, Fox, Fox Atlas, etc.). They have listed on their website the Fox Atlas CPE for $149 for a 30 pack pricing. This is a 10Mbps radio and with a $30 dish will reach up to 10 miles. I currently have a 22 mile 900mhz link with Trango (using an omni on the AP) and a 30.1 mile link with 2.4ghz Trango (also using an omni). The quantity discount pricing you have listed is very close to Trango's pricing on the 900mhz and 2.4ghz units... except Trango already has a dual polarity antenna AND an external antenna connector as part of that price. How much does the price go up on the Canopy (Cyclone?) to get the connector? Are your guys having to haul two different radios for each frequency just in case? Travis Microserv Anthony Will wrote: Your numbers are a bit off on the canopy and when i looked on the trango site it looks more in the range of $400 per unit at 30 pack pricing for trango's. I believe your getting that price but at what qualities? I have a couple hundred in the air and I have Midwest Wireless the 5th largest WISP in the country playing in my back yard using Alvarions junk BA2 system all over the place. And I also have a local ILEC, Stonebridge and the remains of Xtratyme all over the rest of my coverage area. My PtmP system is all 900mhz and 2.4 ghz using omni's and I dont have any issues with interference. The longest customer link I have on 900mhz is 18.5 miles and the longest 2.4 link is 12 miles. I use omni's so that I dont completely destroy the airwaves for others that are playing in the same sand box. Canopy pricing: AP = $898 (Advantage $1554) Single pricing CPE = $267 (Advantage $402 ) 25pack pricing Add $40 a unit for 15 mile range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified) CPE = $216 (Advantage $324) 100 pack pricing Add $25 a unit for 15 mile range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified) Anthony Will Broadband Corp. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I changed the subject line to reflect more the direction of this discussion (Trango vs. Canopy vs. Alvarion)... ;) This is just off the top of my head, and I would love to see more data on any of these radios: Trango 5830AP - $1,079 retail Dual polarity 10Mbps (auto up/down ratio) Easy management (CLI and web) $149 CPE ($199 up to 10 miles) Canopy 5.7 AP - $970 (Advantage $1,974) C/I advantage Fixed up/down ratio $490 CPE ($737 advantage) Alvarion VL AP - $4,500 (rough retail) 36Mbps and 40,000pps $1,000 CPE For whatever it's worth, we have over 2,500 CPE in the air and over 2,000 are Trango (900mhz, 2.4ghz, 5.8ghz). The Trango product has worked very well for us, and we are located on some mountaintop repeater locations that literally have over 100 antennas (paging, HAM, WISPs, etc.) within 100 yards of each other. Our biggest problem is frequency availability at all (regardless of radio choice)... we have a 2.4ghz AP at a repeater station that is full. We attempted to install a second sector today and ran a site survey at this location across the entire 2.4ghz band, the average signals ranged from -25 to -55 at the best. :( Travis Microserv Jon Langeler wrote: Tom, I have nothing to gain or lose by telling you what we've not only extensivley tested but also experienced over 6 years. We started using canopy since it began shipping and at least 100 trango SU between 3 different towers since beta. I just hate to see fellow wisp protest that there isn't a good product and struggle when their actually is a pretty darn good one...and on top of that has an upgrade path in it's vision, it keeps getting better. ARQ does not affect C/I like FEC does for example. When you say ARQ is fixing any resiliance problems that may be true
Re: [WISPA] vendor specs
Are you saying that Motorola holds the financing? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 11:18 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs If you're serving the residential market, and price is the big concern, it's worth noting that Canopy has a $40 / customer residential rebate program that's been going on for almost 2 years now It's also worth noting with Canopy that you need to add ~$10 / unit for power supplies (they are sold separately) Regarding pricing snip AP = $898 (Advantage $1554) Single pricing CPE = $267 (Advantage $402 ) 25pack pricing Add $40 a unit for 15 mile range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified) CPE = $216 (Advantage $324) 100 pack pricing Add $25 a unit for 15 mile range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified) /snip CPE pricing (if you're focusing on residential), should be adjusted to 25 pack: LITE: $129 NET ($149 - 40 + 10) -- (this is currently a promo that ends December 31) Normal: $237 NET ($267 - 40 + 10) 100 pack: Normal: $186 NET ($216 - $40 + 10) Additionally, there are companies out there with Motorola Approved 0% Financing programs that will let you spread your larger pack CPE consumption over a longer period of time and get you to the next tier bundle pack price, so you don't tie up important your working capital in inventory / gear -Charles --- Operating Manager - CTI Yes...I'm back WiNOG Wireless Roadshows Coming to a City Near You http://www.winog.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anthony Will Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 10:17 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs Your numbers are a bit off on the canopy and when i looked on the trango site it looks more in the range of $400 per unit at 30 pack pricing for trango's. I believe your getting that price but at what qualities? I have a couple hundred in the air and I have Midwest Wireless the 5th largest WISP in the country playing in my back yard using Alvarions junk BA2 system all over the place. And I also have a local ILEC, Stonebridge and the remains of Xtratyme all over the rest of my coverage area. My PtmP system is all 900mhz and 2.4 ghz using omni's and I dont have any issues with interference. The longest customer link I have on 900mhz is 18.5 miles and the longest 2.4 link is 12 miles. I use omni's so that I dont completely destroy the airwaves for others that are playing in the same sand box. Canopy pricing: AP = $898 (Advantage $1554) Single pricing CPE = $267 (Advantage $402 ) 25pack pricing Add $40 a unit for 15 mile range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified) CPE = $216 (Advantage $324) 100 pack pricing Add $25 a unit for 15 mile range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified) Anthony Will Broadband Corp. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I changed the subject line to reflect more the direction of this discussion (Trango vs. Canopy vs. Alvarion)... ;) This is just off the top of my head, and I would love to see more data on any of these radios: Trango 5830AP - $1,079 retail Dual polarity 10Mbps (auto up/down ratio) Easy management (CLI and web) $149 CPE ($199 up to 10 miles) Canopy 5.7 AP - $970 (Advantage $1,974) C/I advantage Fixed up/down ratio $490 CPE ($737 advantage) Alvarion VL AP - $4,500 (rough retail) 36Mbps and 40,000pps $1,000 CPE For whatever it's worth, we have over 2,500 CPE in the air and over 2,000 are Trango (900mhz, 2.4ghz, 5.8ghz). The Trango product has worked very well for us, and we are located on some mountaintop repeater locations that literally have over 100 antennas (paging, HAM, WISPs, etc.) within 100 yards of each other. Our biggest problem is frequency availability at all (regardless of radio choice)... we have a 2.4ghz AP at a repeater station that is full. We attempted to install a second sector today and ran a site survey at this location across the entire 2.4ghz band, the average signals ranged from -25 to -55 at the best. :( Travis Microserv Jon Langeler wrote: Tom, I have nothing to gain or lose by telling you what we've not only extensivley tested but also experienced over 6 years. We started using canopy since it began shipping and at least 100 trango SU between 3 different towers since beta. I just hate to see fellow wisp protest that there isn't a good product and struggle when their actually is a pretty darn good one...and on top of that has an upgrade path in it's vision, it keeps getting better. ARQ does not affect C/I like FEC does for example. When you say ARQ is fixing any resiliance problems that may be true. But you'll also suffer from increased latency and less throughput during those retransmissions. Not good if you want to support VOIP and keep customers happy. Having a low C/I means the system
Re: [WISPA] vendor specs
No it gives you 10 or 10 half duplex, which is a big difference. Symetrical does not necessarilly mean at the same time. Comcast and Verizon use oversubscription the their advantage in marketing, we use Half Duplex. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Gino Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 8:07 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs Advantage AP 14 Mbps will give you 7 / 7 Mbps, and thats at the same time, wheres with Trango you can only get 5 /5 ... Gino Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, Because you will run out of upload capacity and the sector will be full. We sell up to 2Mbps connections (2Mbps down and 2Mbps up)... so I would have to go to 50/50 split, meaning only 3.5Mbps download capacity... compared with 10Mbps for my Trango units. Travis Microserv Gino A. Villarini wrote: Travis, WE provide Symetrical Business service with Canopy, why you couldn't ? A Regular AP has 7 Mbps if you split 75/25 that translates to : 5.25 / 1.75 Why can you sell a 512/512 over that type of AP split ? We use Advantage and have 10/4 MBps of capacity. My biggest Symetrical Plan is 3 Mbps, any other Customer that needs 5 , 6 10 symetrical gets a dedicated ptp link ... Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 12:11 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs The biggest reason we use Trango is because we sell our wireless service as symmetrical. Even on the residential level, if they purchase 512k they get 512k down and 512k up. So, if I use Canopy, I have to do a 50/50 split, which means even the Advantage product only provides 7Mbps of usable bandwidth. I would estimate 15% of our new signups for wireless are because of the symmetrical speed (even though 99% of them never use it). Another 15% comes from offering a real static IP address. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: Gino A. Villarini wrote: GPS sync is extra $$. Of course you can also just string sync cables between radios for free. True, but this is truly what makes canopy works and you have nice 3rd party options like www.lastmilegear.com and www.packetflux.com for the gps sync units that start @ less than $300 for a 4 port Sync unit Thanks for the reference to third party sync devices. I am not at all happy with the CMM. I looked at the devices from the respective vendors you shared. While they do look more in line with our needs than the CMM I was wondering if you have seen any third party sync devices that are rack mount and can handle 10+ radios. In fact, handling 24 radios would be awesome for us. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.8/455 - Release Date: 9/22/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs
These are good and important questions Tom. I think StarOS and Mikrotik offer tremendous value for some WISPs, but it really depends. One big thing it depends on is the operator's exit strategy. Once that money is spent on a home brew solution, I'm not sure it ever comes back. BreezeACCESS VL is fully certified and manufactured in ISO-certified plants and also uses ISO-certified components. I can tell you the MTBF of VL is: 550,110 hours for the AU/SU ODU, 1,667,502 hours for the AU IDU, and 169,929 for the SU IDU. Money spent on Alvarion is returned by increasing the equity value of the network and making the network much more valuable to roll-ups. I do not know anyone with a large homebrew network that was rolled up (I am sure there are examples, I just don't know 'em). I do know several with Alvarion networks that have been rolled up. And even if you do don't want to get rolled up or sold, what is the lifespan of a home brew solution? Can it carry you forward to additional services? What's the OPEX environment look like -- is the gear cheap but the ongoing maintenance and worry offset that? I don't pretend to know that since I am only anecdotally familiar with what Lonnie's product offers or what the guys in Latvia can really deliver. Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 2:00 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs To be fair, you shouldn't leave out OEM products from the discussion (Mikrotik / StarOS) These products are actually competitors to all the lines that were listed herein. I think the best decission, may be more relevant to what capacity that a WISP intends to need, and finance ability for the size it intends to grow. For example, I believe having the first-in pick of a cell site, will guarantee better performance and reliabilty to the subscribers than the type of Radio that is selected. Thats one of the reasons that we chose Trango, we were able to deploy a huge number of sites cost effectively and reliably with the product, with limited financing and capitol. Where product justification may come in, is when a WISP scales larger. There is a big benefit to be able to deliver 30 mbps to a sector. The reason is that it allow oversubscription to high ARPU subs when doing PtMP. I can sell 5 mbps speeds and oversubscribe. Thats hard to do on a 10mbps sector. Of course their is the arguement that there is little benefit to having a fast sectors with a limited speed backhaul. But many WISPs that would justify Alvarion, may have fiber at their cell sites or afford Licensed backhaul. The question is, will your market support the higher vision? For example, if we would have chosen Alvarion 5 years ago, we would have bankrupted, as their was not enough customer awareness to allow us to make enough sales quickly enough to cost justify it. It also depends on roof right fees. When you are paying a premium, it helps to go after higher ARPU and VOIP services to help jsutify the high lease fees. Its harder to make it work for just data revenue. If you have good lease deals, this is not an issue. So part of it is the ratio of antenna lease fee to the capacity of teh radio (capcity including amount of voice it can do). The point I'm making is that the winner is not necessarilly based on the spec sheet, its based on the business plan. I'm seeing a clear picture of when and where Alvarion would be the preferred choice, and I see a clear picture of when and where Trango would be the clear choice, but I'm having a hard time homing in on any specific case where Canopy would be the Clear better choice. I beleive Canopy, is now an adequate choice for just about any of the markets, but where is it the best choice? Maybe Canopy is the product that offers a good compromise to fit into each of the markets? Advantage offers a lit more speed than Trango in some areas, and a little better cost than Alvarion, and although not the lowest or best, it offers affordable products on the low end. I'm sure many Canopy users won't agree with that said statement. But considering price, and business plan, not just features, where would Canopy fit, as the best product for a specfic need? About the only thing that I've homed in on would be, a location where Horizonatl noise is higher than verticle, and the provider has a large number of Verticle systems planned (GPS sync), and is worried about interfering with himself, and noise is high enough that C/I is a big concern, and the provider may outsource a lot of technical duties, so wants to control high outsourced technical costs by choosing a more consistent product that has less technical firmware issues? For that reason, I may see where a large national company Canopy for their lower volume sites, that Alvarion was not cost justified for. For the record, the specfic cases that I feel trango
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs
Hi Tom. What hardware features are you referring to? Patrick This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(191). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(43). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs
Tom, I can give you some Canopy buying tips off line ... Also I would like to add that the $150 Trango fox is basically useless with the Dish, putting its true price to $250 or so ... Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 4:10 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs Gino, The prices you state seem way low. I've only see nthat on temporar or Ebay type buying. Is their a CONSISTENT source for $225 and $550 pricing in less than 25 qty? I believe that anyone that is required to buy in qty higher than 25 to get best price is getting overly burdened and likely loosing their savings after looking at all cash flow costs. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 11:05 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Let me comment on this #Canopy 5.7 AP - $970 (Advantage $1,974) is this MRSP ? you can buy this the AP for $800 +/- , Advantage for $1500 #C/I advantage #Fixed up/down ratio Add GPS Sync, Feature rich firmware, NMS Software, Strong support, Good promos, Only Manufacturer to offer price conscious upgrade program, third party products (dishes , gps syncs) ect ect ect #$490 CPE ($737 advantage) .. yikes with CPE you have 3 options : Canopy Lite (1mbps) $170 +/- 25 packs Canopy (14 Mbps Burst) $225 +/- Canopy Advantage (14 Mbps sustained ) $550 ( way over priced IMHO ) Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 10:31 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] vendor specs Hi, I changed the subject line to reflect more the direction of this discussion (Trango vs. Canopy vs. Alvarion)... ;) This is just off the top of my head, and I would love to see more data on any of these radios: Trango 5830AP - $1,079 retail Dual polarity 10Mbps (auto up/down ratio) Easy management (CLI and web) $149 CPE ($199 up to 10 miles) Canopy 5.7 AP - $970 (Advantage $1,974) C/I advantage Fixed up/down ratio $490 CPE ($737 advantage) Alvarion VL AP - $4,500 (rough retail) 36Mbps and 40,000pps $1,000 CPE For whatever it's worth, we have over 2,500 CPE in the air and over 2,000 are Trango (900mhz, 2.4ghz, 5.8ghz). The Trango product has worked very well for us, and we are located on some mountaintop repeater locations that literally have over 100 antennas (paging, HAM, WISPs, etc.) within 100 yards of each other. Our biggest problem is frequency availability at all (regardless of radio choice)... we have a 2.4ghz AP at a repeater station that is full. We attempted to install a second sector today and ran a site survey at this location across the entire 2.4ghz band, the average signals ranged from -25 to -55 at the best. :( Travis Microserv Jon Langeler wrote: Tom, I have nothing to gain or lose by telling you what we've not only extensivley tested but also experienced over 6 years. We started using canopy since it began shipping and at least 100 trango SU between 3 different towers since beta. I just hate to see fellow wisp protest that there isn't a good product and struggle when their actually is a pretty darn good one...and on top of that has an upgrade path in it's vision, it keeps getting better. ARQ does not affect C/I like FEC does for example. When you say ARQ is fixing any resiliance problems that may be true. But you'll also suffer from increased latency and less throughput during those retransmissions. Not good if you want to support VOIP and keep customers happy. Having a low C/I means the system will be stable more often and maintain a lower retrans. Trango's ARQ is not even an option in the 5800 model which is what you and I probably have a decent percentage of in our Trango networks. Having a low C/I requirement affects other things like increases the range of a product. I'm laying out facts, you can convince yourself of whatever you want... Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Tom DeReggi wrote: Nice try, but I've found that comment to be not at all true. I have often chosen to avoid canopy user's channels, but because I am a good WISP neighbor, not because I had to. Why fight if you can cooperate. On a SPEC sheet Canopy does boast the lowest C/I. But Trango's specified C/I was reported before considering ARQ. And Trango has always underspec'd their spec sheets. C/I is not nearly as relevant as SNR resilience anyway. With Arq, we've easilly ran links as low as 4 db above the average noise floor, reliably
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs
Tom, Can you achieve a solid link with the Trango Atals Fox for more than 1 mile ? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 4:13 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs Trango is no where near $400 for Atlas Foxes. Trango's Atlas Fox's distance without dish is just about the same as the standard Canopy CPE (same DBI antenna). Remember that Trango lists retail on their site to protest the WISP. Low volume WISP special pricing is granted to any WISP. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Anthony Will [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 11:17 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs Your numbers are a bit off on the canopy and when i looked on the trango site it looks more in the range of $400 per unit at 30 pack pricing for trango's. I believe your getting that price but at what qualities? I have a couple hundred in the air and I have Midwest Wireless the 5th largest WISP in the country playing in my back yard using Alvarions junk BA2 system all over the place. And I also have a local ILEC, Stonebridge and the remains of Xtratyme all over the rest of my coverage area. My PtmP system is all 900mhz and 2.4 ghz using omni's and I dont have any issues with interference. The longest customer link I have on 900mhz is 18.5 miles and the longest 2.4 link is 12 miles. I use omni's so that I dont completely destroy the airwaves for others that are playing in the same sand box. Canopy pricing: AP = $898 (Advantage $1554) Single pricing CPE = $267 (Advantage $402 ) 25pack pricing Add $40 a unit for 15 mile range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified) CPE = $216 (Advantage $324) 100 pack pricing Add $25 a unit for 15 mile range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified) Anthony Will Broadband Corp. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I changed the subject line to reflect more the direction of this discussion (Trango vs. Canopy vs. Alvarion)... ;) This is just off the top of my head, and I would love to see more data on any of these radios: Trango 5830AP - $1,079 retail Dual polarity 10Mbps (auto up/down ratio) Easy management (CLI and web) $149 CPE ($199 up to 10 miles) Canopy 5.7 AP - $970 (Advantage $1,974) C/I advantage Fixed up/down ratio $490 CPE ($737 advantage) Alvarion VL AP - $4,500 (rough retail) 36Mbps and 40,000pps $1,000 CPE For whatever it's worth, we have over 2,500 CPE in the air and over 2,000 are Trango (900mhz, 2.4ghz, 5.8ghz). The Trango product has worked very well for us, and we are located on some mountaintop repeater locations that literally have over 100 antennas (paging, HAM, WISPs, etc.) within 100 yards of each other. Our biggest problem is frequency availability at all (regardless of radio choice)... we have a 2.4ghz AP at a repeater station that is full. We attempted to install a second sector today and ran a site survey at this location across the entire 2.4ghz band, the average signals ranged from -25 to -55 at the best. :( Travis Microserv Jon Langeler wrote: Tom, I have nothing to gain or lose by telling you what we've not only extensivley tested but also experienced over 6 years. We started using canopy since it began shipping and at least 100 trango SU between 3 different towers since beta. I just hate to see fellow wisp protest that there isn't a good product and struggle when their actually is a pretty darn good one...and on top of that has an upgrade path in it's vision, it keeps getting better. ARQ does not affect C/I like FEC does for example. When you say ARQ is fixing any resiliance problems that may be true. But you'll also suffer from increased latency and less throughput during those retransmissions. Not good if you want to support VOIP and keep customers happy. Having a low C/I means the system will be stable more often and maintain a lower retrans. Trango's ARQ is not even an option in the 5800 model which is what you and I probably have a decent percentage of in our Trango networks. Having a low C/I requirement affects other things like increases the range of a product. I'm laying out facts, you can convince yourself of whatever you want... Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Tom DeReggi wrote: Nice try, but I've found that comment to be not at all true. I have often chosen to avoid canopy user's channels, but because I am a good WISP neighbor, not because I had to. Why fight if you can cooperate. On a SPEC sheet Canopy does boast the lowest C/I. But Trango's specified C/I was reported before considering ARQ. And Trango has always underspec'd their spec sheets. C/I is not nearly
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs
Trango Atlas CPE with dish $250? Canopy with dish $275 Canopy Advantage Cluster: 6 Ap's @ $1500 each = $9k (you can start your pop with a fcc certified omni unit for $2.7k and evolve to a full sector later) CMM Micro for Power and Sync = $1.5k *optional BAM - Prizm = $2k *optional The CMM Micro is optional component for GPS Sync, you can achieve sync among the cluster with 10 ft of cat 5 and 6 rj11 connectors BAM - Prizm is a NMS for Management but is NOT a required component, you can manage all your settings from the web interface on each unit including bandwidth and such. I would only recommend the Prizm NMS for big WISP's (200+ units ) About the Third Party: There are a couple on 3rd party improvements for canopy, almost all were created on a cost savings stand point, Example: Motorola reflector dish for 10 mile + links $100 Beehive Wireless reflector dish for 10 mile links $49.95 (fcc certified) Motorola CMM GPS Sync System $1.5k PacketFLux GPS Sync $300 Any other questions ? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 4:53 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs So what is the onesy-twosy price of a Trango Atlas with an extended range antenna? What is the price for a Canopy Advantage CPE with extended range? I have plenty of data I've found, but there seems to be some wide discrepancy here among you folks. How about total cost for a Canopy cluster with the BAM, GPS synch, and other little extra things you need for it to be complete? Also, I've heard a number of you talk about availability of third party improvements like it is a benefit of the Canopy system. Seriously, isn't that more a reflection of the glaring gaps in Canopy that have led smart WISP entrepreneurs to capitalize? Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 1:13 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs Trango is no where near $400 for Atlas Foxes. Trango's Atlas Fox's distance without dish is just about the same as the standard Canopy CPE (same DBI antenna). Remember that Trango lists retail on their site to protest the WISP. Low volume WISP special pricing is granted to any WISP. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Anthony Will [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 11:17 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs Your numbers are a bit off on the canopy and when i looked on the trango site it looks more in the range of $400 per unit at 30 pack pricing for trango's. I believe your getting that price but at what qualities? I have a couple hundred in the air and I have Midwest Wireless the 5th largest WISP in the country playing in my back yard using Alvarions junk BA2 system all over the place. And I also have a local ILEC, Stonebridge and the remains of Xtratyme all over the rest of my coverage area. My PtmP system is all 900mhz and 2.4 ghz using omni's and I dont have any issues with interference. The longest customer link I have on 900mhz is 18.5 miles and the longest 2.4 link is 12 miles. I use omni's so that I dont completely destroy the airwaves for others that are playing in the same sand box. Canopy pricing: AP = $898 (Advantage $1554) Single pricing CPE = $267 (Advantage $402 ) 25pack pricing Add $40 a unit for 15 mile range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified) CPE = $216 (Advantage $324) 100 pack pricing Add $25 a unit for 15 mile range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified) Anthony Will Broadband Corp. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I changed the subject line to reflect more the direction of this discussion (Trango vs. Canopy vs. Alvarion)... ;) This is just off the top of my head, and I would love to see more data on any of these radios: Trango 5830AP - $1,079 retail Dual polarity 10Mbps (auto up/down ratio) Easy management (CLI and web) $149 CPE ($199 up to 10 miles) Canopy 5.7 AP - $970 (Advantage $1,974) C/I advantage Fixed up/down ratio $490 CPE ($737 advantage) Alvarion VL AP - $4,500 (rough retail) 36Mbps and 40,000pps $1,000 CPE For whatever it's worth, we have over 2,500 CPE in the air and over 2,000 are Trango (900mhz, 2.4ghz, 5.8ghz). The Trango product has worked very well for us, and we are located on some mountaintop repeater locations that literally have over 100 antennas (paging, HAM, WISPs, etc.) within 100 yards of each other. Our biggest problem is frequency availability at all (regardless of radio choice)... we have a 2.4ghz AP at a repeater station
***SPAM*** RE: [WISPA] vendor specs
. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gino A. Villarini Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 3:44 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Trango Atlas CPE with dish $250? Canopy with dish $275 Canopy Advantage Cluster: 6 Ap's @ $1500 each = $9k (you can start your pop with a fcc certified omni unit for $2.7k and evolve to a full sector later) CMM Micro for Power and Sync = $1.5k *optional BAM - Prizm = $2k *optional The CMM Micro is optional component for GPS Sync, you can achieve sync among the cluster with 10 ft of cat 5 and 6 rj11 connectors BAM - Prizm is a NMS for Management but is NOT a required component, you can manage all your settings from the web interface on each unit including bandwidth and such. I would only recommend the Prizm NMS for big WISP's (200+ units ) About the Third Party: There are a couple on 3rd party improvements for canopy, almost all were created on a cost savings stand point, Example: Motorola reflector dish for 10 mile + links $100 Beehive Wireless reflector dish for 10 mile links $49.95 (fcc certified) Motorola CMM GPS Sync System $1.5k PacketFLux GPS Sync $300 Any other questions ? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 4:53 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs So what is the onesy-twosy price of a Trango Atlas with an extended range antenna? What is the price for a Canopy Advantage CPE with extended range? I have plenty of data I've found, but there seems to be some wide discrepancy here among you folks. How about total cost for a Canopy cluster with the BAM, GPS synch, and other little extra things you need for it to be complete? Also, I've heard a number of you talk about availability of third party improvements like it is a benefit of the Canopy system. Seriously, isn't that more a reflection of the glaring gaps in Canopy that have led smart WISP entrepreneurs to capitalize? Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 1:13 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs Trango is no where near $400 for Atlas Foxes. Trango's Atlas Fox's distance without dish is just about the same as the standard Canopy CPE (same DBI antenna). Remember that Trango lists retail on their site to protest the WISP. Low volume WISP special pricing is granted to any WISP. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Anthony Will [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 11:17 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs Your numbers are a bit off on the canopy and when i looked on the trango site it looks more in the range of $400 per unit at 30 pack pricing for trango's. I believe your getting that price but at what qualities? I have a couple hundred in the air and I have Midwest Wireless the 5th largest WISP in the country playing in my back yard using Alvarions junk BA2 system all over the place. And I also have a local ILEC, Stonebridge and the remains of Xtratyme all over the rest of my coverage area. My PtmP system is all 900mhz and 2.4 ghz using omni's and I dont have any issues with interference. The longest customer link I have on 900mhz is 18.5 miles and the longest 2.4 link is 12 miles. I use omni's so that I dont completely destroy the airwaves for others that are playing in the same sand box. Canopy pricing: AP = $898 (Advantage $1554) Single pricing CPE = $267 (Advantage $402 ) 25pack pricing Add $40 a unit for 15 mile range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified) CPE = $216 (Advantage $324) 100 pack pricing Add $25 a unit for 15 mile range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified) Anthony Will Broadband Corp. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I changed the subject line to reflect more the direction of this discussion (Trango vs. Canopy vs. Alvarion)... ;) This is just off the top of my head, and I would love to see more data on any of these radios: Trango 5830AP - $1,079 retail Dual polarity 10Mbps (auto up/down ratio) Easy management (CLI and web) $149 CPE ($199 up to 10 miles) Canopy 5.7 AP - $970 (Advantage $1,974) C/I advantage Fixed up/down ratio $490 CPE ($737 advantage) Alvarion VL AP - $4,500 (rough retail) 36Mbps and 40,000pps $1,000 CPE For whatever it's worth, we have over 2,500 CPE in the air and over 2,000 are Trango (900mhz, 2.4ghz, 5.8ghz). The Trango product has worked very well for us, and we are located on some mountaintop repeater locations that literally
Re: [WISPA] vendor specs
Patrick, Good list. One question that I have... Does the VL use polling or is it CSMA/CA? Your list says it is not some basic CSMA/CA but does that mean it is or is not CSMA/CA? Thanks very much, jack Patrick Leary wrote: I believe most if not all of the below are features not found among Trango or Canopy. I list a few of the advanced features. A few of these (probably some you have never heard of before or even thought of) I show in detail. Maybe this post will also explain why the VL is not simply an Atheros chipset in a case and why it is not simply some basic CSMA/CA. This is just a small sampling. The manual, with lots of tables, drawings, etc., is 277 pages of which most relate to things that can be configured/optimized. (I can send the pdf to any who want it.) · Chassis-based or stand alone AUs with multiple LEDs on the chassi blade versions, including current consumption · Redundant power supplies with status LEDs, including over temperature warning · GPS-sync module (for hoppers) also can be used for VL for their alarm capabilities · 110vAC or -48vDC power options · Built-in Ethernet repeater in the chassis blades to support over 600 feet from network switch/router to ODUs · AUs with antenna options, including built-in 60, 90, or 120 degree sectors plus options with external connector · OFDM (with FEQ) for NLOS ability to enable connection of more of the potential subscriber population · Adaptive modulation with configurable minimum modulation · Up to 40Mbps net (ftp) per sector · Over 40,000pps with small packets · No loss in capacity with varying frame size (all other UL gear capacity is dramatically reduced when passing small packets · FIPS 197 option. AES standard, no extra charge · Virtual LANs based on IEEE 802.1Q with standard QinQ built-in support · Layer-2 traffic prioritization based on IEEE 802.1p and layer-3 traffic prioritization based on either IP ToS Precedence (RFC791) or DSCP (RFC2474). It also supports traffic prioritization based on UDP and/or TCP port ranges. In addition, it may use the optional Wireless Link Prioritization (WLP) feature to fully support delay sensitive applications, enabling Multimedia Application Prioritization (MAP) for high performance voice and video. (MAP can increase VoIP capacity by as much as 500%) · Built-in surge suppression in both ODU and IDU · Full management of all components, from any point in the system. · Components can be managed using standard management tools through SNMP agents that implement standard and proprietary MIBs for remote setting of operational modes and parameters. Security features incorporated in BreezeACCESS VL units restrict access for management purposes to specific IP addresses and/or directions, that is, from the Ethernet and/or wireless link. · True toll quality VoIP (MOS of 4.1 or better) · Upload new or updated configuration file to multiple (selectable) units simultaneously, thus radically reducing the time spent on unit configuration maintenance. · Back up/shadow flash, can support two different versions of firmware · 5MHz (4.9GHz version), 10MHz, or 20MHz channel options. · SUs autorecognize and configure channel size · SUs available with external connector or integrated 21dBi with 10.5h/10.5v beamwidth · Multilevel password, multi-layer ESSIDs · Configuration of remote access direction (from Ethernet only, from wireless link only or from both) · Configuration of IP addresses of authorized stations · Numerous LEDs detailing advanced status information, plus tri-color 10-bar alignment LEDs that directly corresponds to SNR, including amber for warning signal is too strong (SNR 50dB) · Pole mount or band strap mounting options, hardware included · Power supply included, with reset feature and integrated surge suppression · Specialty Cat 5 connector · Industrial grade waterproof seal with O rings · Auto or configurable maximum cell distance · Automatic distance learning. Per SU Distance Learning mechanism controlled by the AU enables each SU to adapt its Acknowledge timeout to its actual distance from the AU, minimizing delays in the wireless link · Low Priority Traffic Minimum Percent feature ensures a selectable certain amount of the traffic is reserved to low priority packets to prevent starvation of low priority traffic when there is a high demand for high priority traffic. · MAC address deny and allow list · Able to configure size of concatenated frames (enables customization/optimization based on expected applications) · Best AU and preferred AU options in the SUs. (Best AU explanation: each
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs
So like I suggested before simply put another $40 Atheros radio in there tuned to 5.3GHz. This has been mentioned before by more than just me. How is that a simple CM9 (Atheros radio) is capable of 5.3GHz and 5.8GHz with little or no degradation? I think your RD folks are not being as forthcoming with you as they should. BTW, stop trying to play the victim here Patrick. It's very unbecoming of you. These are basic straightforward suggestions that have been proven in competing products. This discussion will only improve your product awareness and hopefully the suggestions you cultivate here will trickle up to your RD team and be implemented. So far we've made progress on the RSSI topic and the dual polarity item. Don't expect us to give up until we get dual band as well. grin Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 3:42 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs There are arguments against dual band support, as we have discussed before, though you ridicule our sincere reasoning and call it BS (which is why I am cautious about discussing these things with you in public). As I said to you, our RD folks tell me that RF components that span a broad frequency range have poorer performance than those designed for more narrow frequency ranges. I don't have a Ph.D in EE or other science disciplines, so I'm not going to argue with them. And as I have further explained, that poorer edge performance may or may not be worth giving up to get the benefit of dual band. That part is an economic question, not a technical one. At this point, our company has made the decision that the loss in performance is not worth the benefits. And yes, our RD DO tend to be RF purists (another thing you ridicule). That reality has its good and bad points. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 12:24 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Agreed, VL does have more niche features and some of those can be the sole reason VL makes the cut and other products do not. As you know VLAN support was the key feature in this particular case, but simply placing a CPE router on site will also fill that need. I'm a believer in the VL product, but there are currently a few too many basic pitfalls with the product. If I didn't care I wouldn't be posting about the VL. Let's face it this is some of the best exposure a manufacturer can ask for: users expressing improvements they would like to see implemented. The improvement requests here aren't without merit. Dual polarity and dual band capability are good ideas. There isn't any argument against it, so why not implement it? I guarantee it will result in additional VL sales. Trango has many features that VL does not currently offer in addition to the extremely important Dual Polarity ability: (1) Rx Threshold to maintain full payload capacity in noisy areas (2) Far fewer commands that require a reboot (3) Much faster reboot (4) Dual band 5.3GHz and 5.8GHz in one product (5) RSSI reading local and remote side (6) Ability to locate noise at AU or SU without interrupting traffic Considering Alvarion has a tech in the local area I wouldn't expect anything less than a free visit. Scanning the numerous emails between all of us on this topic I'm unable to find the offer. Could you forward me the exchange you are referring to? Trango offered to fly a tech out to us from across the country for free. Free is in quotations because I don't believe anything is free...you're paying for it somewhere in this case by purchasing product. grin There is more, but it's Sunday and I've got yet another 4 or 5yr old birthday party to attend! Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 12:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Re dual polarity via software, I and others have always said it would be nice. You've never heard me argue against it and you have heard me acknowledge that this is Trango's key Trango only differentiator. But we all understand that and have acknowledged it many times. Lots of things are nice, some just have higher priority than others. For every 1 thing VL may not have relative to Trango, we can probably find 10 things VL can do that Trango cannot, each of equal importance maybe to dual polarity. The ability to do VoIP well would be such a thing. Those with multipoint networks using Trango or Canopy are entirely stranded in terms of being able to do VoIP to any reasonable scale. Come on Brad. I was personally involved in some of the threads where I've seen my people (or me) attempt to answer every
RE: [WISPA] vendor specs
lolyou are kidding right Patrick? Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 5:03 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs Hi Tom. What hardware features are you referring to? Patrick This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(191). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(43). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] vendor specs
Yes, Motorola provides a service to any customer that purchases or has a canopy product installed for service. This is a $40 mail in rebate that has to have a unique MAC address of the radio installed supplied. The end customer receives this rebate from Motorola. The ISP is prohibited from receiving this money. My guess on this is because they will actually have to pay it for every single radio they sell Personally I am a bit frustrated with the program, not of the fact that it doesnt work or any thing like that but I would prefer they just drop the radio cost by $40 but business is business. Obviously this can help with the residential end of things for advertising free or reduced cost installations or months service with mail in rebate We advertise it as one month free service. I must add that the program has had a noticeable effect on our residential customer advertising uptake. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. Tom DeReggi wrote: Are you saying that Motorola holds the financing? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 11:18 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs If you're serving the residential market, and price is the big concern, it's worth noting that Canopy has a $40 / customer residential rebate program that's been going on for almost 2 years now It's also worth noting with Canopy that you need to add ~$10 / unit for power supplies (they are sold separately) Regarding pricing snip AP = $898 (Advantage $1554) Single pricing CPE = $267 (Advantage $402 ) 25pack pricing Add $40 a unit for 15 mile range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified) CPE = $216 (Advantage $324) 100 pack pricing Add $25 a unit for 15 mile range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified) /snip CPE pricing (if you're focusing on residential), should be adjusted to 25 pack: LITE: $129 NET ($149 - 40 + 10) -- (this is currently a promo that ends December 31) Normal: $237 NET ($267 - 40 + 10) 100 pack: Normal: $186 NET ($216 - $40 + 10) Additionally, there are companies out there with Motorola Approved 0% Financing programs that will let you spread your larger pack CPE consumption over a longer period of time and get you to the next tier bundle pack price, so you don't tie up important your working capital in inventory / gear -Charles --- Operating Manager - CTI Yes...I'm back WiNOG Wireless Roadshows Coming to a City Near You http://www.winog.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anthony Will Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 10:17 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs Your numbers are a bit off on the canopy and when i looked on the trango site it looks more in the range of $400 per unit at 30 pack pricing for trango's. I believe your getting that price but at what qualities? I have a couple hundred in the air and I have Midwest Wireless the 5th largest WISP in the country playing in my back yard using Alvarions junk BA2 system all over the place. And I also have a local ILEC, Stonebridge and the remains of Xtratyme all over the rest of my coverage area. My PtmP system is all 900mhz and 2.4 ghz using omni's and I dont have any issues with interference. The longest customer link I have on 900mhz is 18.5 miles and the longest 2.4 link is 12 miles. I use omni's so that I dont completely destroy the airwaves for others that are playing in the same sand box. Canopy pricing: AP = $898 (Advantage $1554) Single pricing CPE = $267 (Advantage $402 ) 25pack pricing Add $40 a unit for 15 mile range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified) CPE = $216 (Advantage $324) 100 pack pricing Add $25 a unit for 15 mile range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified) Anthony Will Broadband Corp. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I changed the subject line to reflect more the direction of this discussion (Trango vs. Canopy vs. Alvarion)... ;) This is just off the top of my head, and I would love to see more data on any of these radios: Trango 5830AP - $1,079 retail Dual polarity 10Mbps (auto up/down ratio) Easy management (CLI and web) $149 CPE ($199 up to 10 miles) Canopy 5.7 AP - $970 (Advantage $1,974) C/I advantage Fixed up/down ratio $490 CPE ($737 advantage) Alvarion VL AP - $4,500 (rough retail) 36Mbps and 40,000pps $1,000 CPE For whatever it's worth, we have over 2,500 CPE in the air and over 2,000 are Trango (900mhz, 2.4ghz, 5.8ghz). The Trango product has worked very well for us, and we are located on some mountaintop repeater locations that literally have over 100 antennas (paging, HAM, WISPs, etc.) within 100 yards of each other. Our biggest problem is frequency availability at all (regardless of radio choice)... we have a 2.4ghz AP at a repeater station that is full. We attempted
