Re: Wierd ... was [WISPA] 3650 equipment
This happens to me every so often; usually just 3 or 4 emails at a time. This was just a bigger jolt of it. Jason David E. Smith wrote: John Scrivner wrote: It is not a clock issue. All the messages that were sent with old dates were already delivered previously. These are duplicate messages. Hm. Hmmm (digs around through mail server logs) Well, the old posts from three weeks ago and the new posts from today have different Message-IDs, so at least it ain't my fault. :) David Smith Semi-Unofficial WISPA Web Tinker MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: Wierd ... was [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Lets do the Time Warp Again! Its just a jump to the left -Michael Gino A. Villarini wrote: I ogt them too... 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 Rich Comroe Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 11:21 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Wierd ... was [WISPA] 3650 equipment My appologies to the list. I'd added a couple cents to a thread that had ended weeks ago. Wierd, but my email client just pulled about 30 emails today on these old threads as if they were new. I'm reading along ... and this thread looks familiar ... and only after sending a reply to one of them did I notice Patrick had penned that mail back on May 26th. Wierder yet is that I'd completely failed to notice that the 30 or so old emails were almost all old posts from Patrick that were several weeks old, with a couple from Brad that were about a week old. Don't know if the server hosting my mailbox did a drive restore that ressurected old mail or whether anyone else got a copies of old mail too. Has this ever happened to anyone else? With dozens of email arrivals on the thread 3650 equipment and This is HUGE! I thought that these topics had reborn again! :-) My mistake. Rich - Original Message - From: Rich Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 7:33 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: Wierd ... was [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Might not be you, others commented about the Patricks late emails. Rich Comroe wrote: My appologies to the list. I'd added a couple cents to a thread that had ended weeks ago. Wierd, but my email client just pulled about 30 emails today on these old threads as if they were new. I'm reading along ... and this thread looks familiar ... and only after sending a reply to one of them did I notice Patrick had penned that mail back on May 26th. Wierder yet is that I'd completely failed to notice that the 30 or so old emails were almost all old posts from Patrick that were several weeks old, with a couple from Brad that were about a week old. Don't know if the server hosting my mailbox did a drive restore that ressurected old mail or whether anyone else got a copies of old mail too. Has this ever happened to anyone else? With dozens of email arrivals on the thread 3650 equipment and This is HUGE! I thought that these topics had reborn again! :-) My mistake. Rich - Original Message - From: Rich Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 7:33 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Nah. What Charles misses in his commentary But all the fancy schmancy technology you implement won't do @#$@ unless 3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the area (including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats you for breakfast, lunch dinner =( is that a band doesn't need to be licensed to insure that a technology is only competing with like technology. All the FCC would have to do to make Charles presumption all wet is to only type accept 3650 products compliant to a common spec. Unless I'm mistaken, there aren't any GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends in the 3650 band. As long as the rules only type accept a common interference avoidance spec (or a contention spec as many call it), then unlicensed systems in the same band play nice. Rich - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 2:29 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment You make the mistake of assuming that I am talking about an unlicensed 3.65 product Charles. We would not likely build a UL version of all that. I am in complete agreement with you on 3.650 in terms of the end reality and utility of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I support essentially splitting the band. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Hi Patrick, But all the fancy schmancy technology you implement won't do @#$@ unless 3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the area (including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats you for breakfast, lunch dinner =( -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding much higher spectral efficiency and system gain. Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other factors are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e version of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a SIM card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment 3.5Ghz does, I find that hard to believe. 2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely on 900Mhz. What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task? With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP or mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed. Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: jeffrey thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:02 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed service to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors. 5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors 5.4
RE: Wierd ... was [WISPA] 3650 equipment
I ogt them too... 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 Rich Comroe Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 11:21 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Wierd ... was [WISPA] 3650 equipment My appologies to the list. I'd added a couple cents to a thread that had ended weeks ago. Wierd, but my email client just pulled about 30 emails today on these old threads as if they were new. I'm reading along ... and this thread looks familiar ... and only after sending a reply to one of them did I notice Patrick had penned that mail back on May 26th. Wierder yet is that I'd completely failed to notice that the 30 or so old emails were almost all old posts from Patrick that were several weeks old, with a couple from Brad that were about a week old. Don't know if the server hosting my mailbox did a drive restore that ressurected old mail or whether anyone else got a copies of old mail too. Has this ever happened to anyone else? With dozens of email arrivals on the thread 3650 equipment and This is HUGE! I thought that these topics had reborn again! :-) My mistake. Rich - Original Message - From: Rich Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 7:33 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Nah. What Charles misses in his commentary But all the fancy schmancy technology you implement won't do @#$@ unless 3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the area (including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats you for breakfast, lunch dinner =( is that a band doesn't need to be licensed to insure that a technology is only competing with like technology. All the FCC would have to do to make Charles presumption all wet is to only type accept 3650 products compliant to a common spec. Unless I'm mistaken, there aren't any GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends in the 3650 band. As long as the rules only type accept a common interference avoidance spec (or a contention spec as many call it), then unlicensed systems in the same band play nice. Rich - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 2:29 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment You make the mistake of assuming that I am talking about an unlicensed 3.65 product Charles. We would not likely build a UL version of all that. I am in complete agreement with you on 3.650 in terms of the end reality and utility of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I support essentially splitting the band. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Hi Patrick, But all the fancy schmancy technology you implement won't do @#$@ unless 3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the area (including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats you for breakfast, lunch dinner =( -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding much higher spectral efficiency and system gain. Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other factors are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e version of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a SIM card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment 3.5Ghz does, I find that hard to believe. 2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely on 900Mhz. What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task? With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP or mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed. Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: jeffrey thomas [EMAIL
Re: Wierd ... was [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Gino A. Villarini wrote: I ogt them too... I peeked at the headers (sorry, that's my schtick) and while the Date: header said three weeks ago, they were only sent today. I'm guessing Patrick just has a computer with a really squirrely clock. David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: Wierd ... was [WISPA] 3650 equipment
It is not a clock issue. All the messages that were sent with old dates were already delivered previously. These are duplicate messages. Scriv David E. Smith wrote: Gino A. Villarini wrote: I ogt them too... I peeked at the headers (sorry, that's my schtick) and while the Date: header said three weeks ago, they were only sent today. I'm guessing Patrick just has a computer with a really squirrely clock. David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: Wierd ... was [WISPA] 3650 equipment
John Scrivner wrote: It is not a clock issue. All the messages that were sent with old dates were already delivered previously. These are duplicate messages. Hm. Hmmm (digs around through mail server logs) Well, the old posts from three weeks ago and the new posts from today have different Message-IDs, so at least it ain't my fault. :) David Smith Semi-Unofficial WISPA Web Tinker MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
