Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-05-02 Thread John Thomas
We kind of got sucked into this. We have been working with Cisco as a 
muni provider and were offered the Mesh training, which was good. A City 
IT manager found out about the mesh and wanted it-before it was even 
available-which wasn't so good. We could either install it and make some 
money or walk away and not make money. Based on the data sheets, I had 
high hopes, now that reality has set in, I am disappointed. I understand 
why Ciscos pricing is higher-they bought Airespace and need to get their 
investment back. That doesn't justify the fact the their gear is 3-4 x 
what the competitors is. We are dealing with cities, and most of them 
have a Catalyst 6500 in the back room. They tend to standardize on Cisco 
and are willing to pay the price.


Dos airmatrix have a dual radio mesh box? I just looked and the mesh 
boxes seem to be single radio 2.4 only.


John

Jeffrey Thomas wrote:

Yay branding.

Actually my commpany is certified on cisco mesh. Which doesn't mean I would
sell it or recommend it. I actually tell most customers to consider lower
Cost options because there are so few real differentiators in mesh products.

1. Its far too overpriced ( retail of 4k per unit makes a 50 unit mesh a
240k project when compared to say, airmatrix which would run the operator
Close to 50k. So is one product is 4x greater cost than the other, then
There is something really screwy going on.


-jb

 



On 4/25/06 7:10 AM, John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  

Cities don't want home brew, they generally want something that says Cisco on
the side. Every city that we ahve recently talked to either has a Cisco
Catalyst 6500 at teh core or has written a RFP to buy a switch that directly
indicates a Catalyst 6500. Note, I am talking about cities with populationd of
25,000 and larger, I can't speak for the smaller towns.

John




-Original Message-
From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:00 AM
To: ''WISPA General List''
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

Why not just buy the cards, boards, antennas and make a few yourself?

c

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:46 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

Then there are companies like airmatrix that charge less than 1k per
node.
The key with mesh is density, and many mesh startup's fail because they
Underbuild their networks.

-

Jeff



On 4/24/06 7:53 AM, John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  

I don't know what equipment they are using, but Cisco AP1500's (mesh)


are
  

abnout $3700 each and Cisco recommends 18-20 per square mile. Thats


$74,000
  

for the boxes plus antennas, mounts, POE and install.

John




-Original Message-
From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:26 AM
To: ''WISPA General List''
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

$173K per mile build out cost?  Somebody just bought a new boat..

c

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  

On
  

Behalf Of George
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:08 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

George
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date:
  

4/14/2006
  

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

  

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

  

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




  



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-05-02 Thread David Peterson
We do have dual radio mesh with 400mW and 100mW output power.  You can find
more information at http://www.defactowireless.com/Brochures/NewMesh.pdf

I can have someone contact you offlist about the new products.

David Peterson
AirMatrix

On 5/2/06 5:30 PM, John Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 We kind of got sucked into this. We have been working with Cisco as a
 muni provider and were offered the Mesh training, which was good. A City
 IT manager found out about the mesh and wanted it-before it was even
 available-which wasn't so good. We could either install it and make some
 money or walk away and not make money. Based on the data sheets, I had
 high hopes, now that reality has set in, I am disappointed. I understand
 why Ciscos pricing is higher-they bought Airespace and need to get their
 investment back. That doesn't justify the fact the their gear is 3-4 x
 what the competitors is. We are dealing with cities, and most of them
 have a Catalyst 6500 in the back room. They tend to standardize on Cisco
 and are willing to pay the price.
 
 Dos airmatrix have a dual radio mesh box? I just looked and the mesh
 boxes seem to be single radio 2.4 only.
 
 John
 
 Jeffrey Thomas wrote:
 Yay branding.
 
 Actually my commpany is certified on cisco mesh. Which doesn't mean I would
 sell it or recommend it. I actually tell most customers to consider lower
 Cost options because there are so few real differentiators in mesh products.
 
 1. Its far too overpriced ( retail of 4k per unit makes a 50 unit mesh a
 240k project when compared to say, airmatrix which would run the operator
 Close to 50k. So is one product is 4x greater cost than the other, then
 There is something really screwy going on.
 
 
 -jb
 
  
 
 
 On 4/25/06 7:10 AM, John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
   
 Cities don't want home brew, they generally want something that says Cisco
 on
 the side. Every city that we ahve recently talked to either has a Cisco
 Catalyst 6500 at teh core or has written a RFP to buy a switch that directly
 indicates a Catalyst 6500. Note, I am talking about cities with populationd
 of
 25,000 and larger, I can't speak for the smaller towns.
 
 John
 
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:00 AM
 To: ''WISPA General List''
 Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
 
 Why not just buy the cards, boards, antennas and make a few yourself?
 
 c
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas
 Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:46 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
 
 Then there are companies like airmatrix that charge less than 1k per
 node.
 The key with mesh is density, and many mesh startup's fail because they
 Underbuild their networks.
 
 -
 
 Jeff
 
 
 
 On 4/24/06 7:53 AM, John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
   
 I don't know what equipment they are using, but Cisco AP1500's (mesh)
 
 are
   
 abnout $3700 each and Cisco recommends 18-20 per square mile. Thats
 
 $74,000
   
 for the boxes plus antennas, mounts, POE and install.
 
 John
 
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:26 AM
 To: ''WISPA General List''
 Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
 
 $173K per mile build out cost?  Somebody just bought a new boat..
 
 c
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   
 On
   
 Behalf Of George
 Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:08 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
 
 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups
 
 I am not a fan of muni wireless.
 
 George
 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 
 
 --
 Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
 Checked by AVG Free Edition.
 Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date:
   
 4/14/2006
   
 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
   
 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 
 
 --
 Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
 Checked by AVG Free Edition.
 Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006
 
 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-27 Thread Peter R.
Free Municipal Wi-Fi Service Boosts Economic Development in the City of 
St. Cloud, FL

at http://www.digitalcityexpo.com/agenda.htm
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-27 Thread Charles Wu
Take that article/session with a grain of salt -- as it is being run by an
organization that is supported by vendors trying to *sell* the concept of
muni-wifi

-Charles

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com 



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Peter R.
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 8:03 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes


Free Municipal Wi-Fi Service Boosts Economic Development in the City of 
St. Cloud, FL
at http://www.digitalcityexpo.com/agenda.htm
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-26 Thread Brad Larson
HP has a Wireless Engineering Group acting as an integrator for Muni
Projects. Alvarion has worked with them on several projects. Brad

-Original Message-
From: Carl A Jeptha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 7:32 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

What is really funny is that they used Hewlett Packard. Why not Cisco, 
Alvarion, Tranzeo. These are some of the people who are suppose to know 
what they are doing.
BTW I am a certified HP Computer and printer tech. but still I think 
they know what they are doing. KICKBACK

You have a Good Day now,


Carl A Jeptha
http://www.airnet.ca
office 905 349-2084
Emergency only Pager 905 377-6900
skype cajeptha



Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:
 roflol

 The city is selling signal boosters (I read that as amps) to anyone 
 that wants them for $170?

 Oh man, this deployment is gonna come CRASHING down.  Hard.

 It's really too bad these people are too ignorant, stubborn or just 
 plain stupid to call any of us in to help.

 sigh

 Marlon
 (509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
 64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
 www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
 www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



 - Original Message - From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:07 AM
 Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes


 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

 I am not a fan of muni wireless.

 George
 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

 
 

 
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-26 Thread Brad Larson
I'm biting my tongue on this topicI have been on enough of these
projects, well over 50 in the last 12 months alone, and I have to say there
are a pile of people that don't know what they're getting into and many will
get hurt. For instance, I have a unnamed mesh vendor quoting 14 nodes per
square mile for 100% coverage in a decent sized community in MA. They'll
need at least 40ish... And please keep in mind that different parts of the
Country where tree lines/foliage, noise floors, and topology are different
create their own separate challenges. Throw in voice as some of the
wireless network experts have advised and a whole new overlay of problems
surface.

There is a place for mesh just like other tools in your kit but covering
whole counties or even trying to cover a whole City is quite a stretch IMHO.
How did we get to this point of mesh first being considered a convenience
or hotspot extension to what it has become today where it is seen as the
4th solution to the last mile or a cost effective roaming solution for
public safety or city workers? 

I have seen designs in the NE US where 40 to 69 2.4 Ghz nodes per square
mile are needed when a simple implement of 900 Mhz mobility with two base
stations (redundant) per square mile can do the trick and save 90% of the
cost of a mesh network. Use mesh in the parks, at the pool, in the
restaurant district, or anywhere else people may want public access. And
I'll add that opening up my notebook on a sunny day outside is pretty much a
waste of battery power. I'm afraid Tempe AZ and St Cloud are just the start
of some of the bad press we're going to see related to our wireless
industry. 

But then again, I'm a show me guy so if one of these major networks actually
works, has an ROI and doesn't become a boondoggle for tax payers, and serves
the public well then I'll be impressed. Brad

-Original Message-
From: John J. Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 10:03 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes


-Original Message-
From: George [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 09:02 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

John J. Thomas wrote:
 inline...

 
 First off, the WISPs have to have the guts to talk to the city. Many
simply refuse to do so, and are probably going to get the Muni WiFi shoved
down their throats.
 

I don't want to turn this into a battle of ideals.

George, you are welcome to believe anything that you want. Here are some
facts;
1. I work for Clare Computer Solutions and we are a Cisco Mesh certified
network Integrator.
2. Cities have approached US to install their networks
3. These cities are not San Francisco sized, they are probably populations
100,000 and smaller.
4. They are spending the money to put in infrastructure for City workers,
first. Many are looking at providing Internet access second.



But how many local wisps have been chosen to date?
I bet Joe laura in NO got passed over without much consideration to him.
Joe is on this list, let him chime in here.

 Second, the cities are mostly going to use 2.4 GHz for access and 5.7-5.8
GHz for backhauls. WISP's will need to use 5.25-5.25 GHz and 900 MHz.
 

Almost every wisp today is using 2.4 to reach the customer and 5 gig for 
infrastructure and high end customers. Are you saying that wisps have to 
move off the existing spectrum and replace their equipment?

I am not saying that WISPS have to move off of 2.4. I am saying that if
WISPs want to provide top quality service, then they may need to move off of
2.4 as it is getting crowded in lots of areas.

 
 In a word, service. The city will only be offering WiFi access-period.
They won't be going out to peoples houses and doing installs, fixing virii,
doing firewalls, etc.
 

Here is a scenario, if a potential customer who is on the fence while 
deciding to go to broadband was to hear that a new muni free wifi system 
is going to come on line or he can buy now with his local wisp, which 
choice is the average consumer going to make?

Most are going to try the muni first. Some are going to be unsatisfied and
will look for a better deal. I'll give you an example. I had 384k SDSL to my
house and it was costing me $152 per month. In order to save money, I
dropped the SDSL in favor of a cable modem. The cable modem can do 6 meg
down and about 384k up for $43 per month and has been verified by
DSLreports. Even my wife thinks the SDSL was better, I just couldn't afford
it anymore. If someone in Antioch CA were even offering wireless service at
$42 per month, I would be there. There is a subset of people that want
quality, and are willing to pay for it. Two questions come up-can you
deliver and are there enough to keep you from starving?




The support scenario happens long after the fact.

George
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org

Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-26 Thread Rudolph Worrell
Please send your money as we are backordered for development.  Will send 
product as soon as we can fill the order. LOL.

Quoting Brian Rohrbacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

 I'll take 200.
 
 Rudolph Worrell wrote:
 
 I am reading all of these posts and I see one thing here.  Marketing! There
 is 
 little sense to this but a great deal of marketing being done for Mesh, 4.9,
 
 and Muni WiFi.  I see out of town guys chime in all the time and express how
 
 well they can deploy and integrate networks.  I am very curious about the 
 actual implementations they have done that involved a large mountain ranges
 
 with customers spaced every 5 miles who are behind trees, or has some 
 obstruction to any towers.  Better yet a neighborhood with devices on the
 same 
 frequencies that you cannot control.  My guess is that their lab and specs
 of 
 their devices looks great but the actual deployment is a different story. 
 We 
 all know that 2.4Ghz, 900Mhz, and 5.8Ghz, all have their limitations, and
 will 
 perform perhaps 10% to 20% worst than advertised.  Do these guys know that?
 
 
 As for the marketing bit, I have a 2.4Ghz wireless device that can
 communicate 
 at 100 mph, at distances of 100mi from the tower using 60foot dishes, giving
 a 
 throughput of 200Mbps.  It sells for $50,000.00 per Clieint bridge and 
 $600,000.00 per AP.  Who wants to buy?
 
 
 Quoting Carl A Jeptha [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 
   
 
 Well to one-up you,
 Our local Utility has been offered Wimax Radios to be used in a Mesh 
 Network on a licensed Freq, so that they can read meters.
 What really gets me is that these people with a few carefully chosen 
 words appear to know more than all of us put together. The gift of the
 GAB.
 
 You have a Good Day now,
 
 
 Carl A Jeptha
 http://www.airnet.ca
 office 905 349-2084
 Emergency only Pager 905 377-6900
 skype cajeptha
 
 
 
 Brad Larson wrote:
 
 
 I'm biting my tongue on this topicI have been on enough of these
 projects, well over 50 in the last 12 months alone, and I have to say
   
 
 there
 
 
 are a pile of people that don't know what they're getting into and many
   
 
 will
 
 
 get hurt. For instance, I have a unnamed mesh vendor quoting 14 nodes per
 square mile for 100% coverage in a decent sized community in MA. They'll
 need at least 40ish... And please keep in mind that different parts of
 the
 Country where tree lines/foliage, noise floors, and topology are
 different
 create their own separate challenges. Throw in voice as some of the
 wireless network experts have advised and a whole new overlay of
   
 
 problems
 
 
 surface.
 
 There is a place for mesh just like other tools in your kit but covering
 whole counties or even trying to cover a whole City is quite a stretch
   
 
 IMHO.
 
 
 How did we get to this point of mesh first being considered a
 convenience
 or hotspot extension to what it has become today where it is seen as the
 4th solution to the last mile or a cost effective roaming solution for
 public safety or city workers? 
 
 I have seen designs in the NE US where 40 to 69 2.4 Ghz nodes per square
 mile are needed when a simple implement of 900 Mhz mobility with two base
 stations (redundant) per square mile can do the trick and save 90% of the
 cost of a mesh network. Use mesh in the parks, at the pool, in the
 restaurant district, or anywhere else people may want public access. And
 I'll add that opening up my notebook on a sunny day outside is pretty
 much
   
 
 a
 
 
 waste of battery power. I'm afraid Tempe AZ and St Cloud are just the
   
 
 start
 
 
 of some of the bad press we're going to see related to our wireless
 industry. 
 
 But then again, I'm a show me guy so if one of these major networks
   
 
 actually
 
 
 works, has an ROI and doesn't become a boondoggle for tax payers, and
   
 
 serves
 
 
 the public well then I'll be impressed. Brad
 
 -Original Message-
 From: John J. Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 10:03 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
 
 
   
   
 
 -Original Message-
 From: George [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 09:02 AM
 To: 'WISPA General List'
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
 
 John J. Thomas wrote:
 
 
 
 inline...
   
 First off, the WISPs have to have the guts to talk to the city. Many
   
   
 
 simply refuse to do so, and are probably going to get the Muni WiFi
 shoved
 down their throats.
   
   
 
 I don't want to turn this into a battle of ideals.
 
 
 
 George, you are welcome to believe anything that you want. Here are some
 facts;
 1. I work for Clare Computer Solutions and we are a Cisco Mesh certified
 network Integrator.
 2. Cities have approached US to install their networks
 3. These cities are not San Francisco sized, they are probably

Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-25 Thread Tom DeReggi
Which will be a darn shame, as San Francisco is a near perfect city for a 
Wide Scale PtMP cell type engineered WISP network, based on the layout of 
the city, and where the high spots are.  But I'm sure they'll ruin it with 
the high power Omni on every corner design.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes



I'll go ahead and predict that San Francisco will be a disaster.

-Matt

Jack Unger wrote:

Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni problems 
that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be done correctly 
and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to play a positive role 
in proper network design and operation however most muni networks are 
incorrectly designed by people with limited wireless experience (yes, 
that even includes some mesh network vendors) which will lead to network 
failure, waste of taxpayer money, and possible loss of jobs on the part 
of the city IT folks (not to mention the elected officials) who backed 
the networks without first learning about how wireless technology really 
works.

  jack

George wrote:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

George





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-25 Thread George

Travis Johnson wrote:
You guys are all missing the point. If they contract with the local 
WISP, they don't get to create new jobs for the muni... instead, they 
are just helping a local business grow with local tax money.


Welcome to politics in the wireless arena. :(

Travis
Microserv


Exactly Travis, it's a socialist dream.

I wasn't aware of this until last week when I read an article about 
Salem Oregon's Open.org.


The City has been running open.org which is a full facilities based ISP 
with dial up, web hosting, DSL and wifi hot spots.


They charge 12.00 per month for dial up. Anybody can sell 12.00 dial up, 
nothing special here.


I'm not sure about the other businesspeople  on this list, but I have 
a hard time accepting that our government ought to be in *any* business. 
Never mind competing against the private sector.
Salem Oregon is not a small town with nobody servicing it, it's the 
State Capital and either the 2nd or 3rd largest city in the state. I 
don't buy that they provided these services because others wouldn't or 
couldn't, I believe it's just what it is, state run industry.


I thought that we went to war in Korea, Vietnam, Central America and 
almost with Russia to end communism and socialism and to further our 
capitalistic system.


So why should any government local or state decide to take over an 
industry and compete against business after what this country has stood 
for the entire 20th century?


This is where I find Muni anything to be appalling.

You hit it square on the head, it's politics and I don't believe any of 
us businesspeople want to include politics as part of our business.


George
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-25 Thread George


Here in Atlanta you can't use 2.4 unless it is indoors. In fact, you 
have to get out 90+ miles before the noise floor drops off enough to 
even think about it. 
-Matt


Need I say more.

George

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-25 Thread George

Chris cooper wrote:

The SR9 cards might be interesting for this app...



Probably not much help Chris.
As you and every wisp who has deployed more than a few AP's in urban 
density knows, there is not enough spectrum available in all the 
unlicensed bands combined to service the vast population of any city of 
size.


Wisps are usually number 3 behind DSL and cable n most markets. Reason 
we will always be behind is we can not put as many people on our 
networks without fubaring the spectrum.


So this is the issue, not enough spectrum, we need more spectrum and we 
need to be looking at wireless-fiber combo.


Seeing we don't have enough spectrum, it should not go wasted, 
regardless of the frequency, by hanging government operated omni's on 
every third light pole.


It's a ridiculous thought.

George

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-25 Thread Carl A Jeptha
What is really funny is that they used Hewlett Packard. Why not Cisco, 
Alvarion, Tranzeo. These are some of the people who are suppose to know 
what they are doing.
BTW I am a certified HP Computer and printer tech. but still I think 
they know what they are doing. KICKBACK


You have a Good Day now,


Carl A Jeptha
http://www.airnet.ca
office 905 349-2084
Emergency only Pager 905 377-6900
skype cajeptha



Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:

roflol

The city is selling signal boosters (I read that as amps) to anyone 
that wants them for $170?


Oh man, this deployment is gonna come CRASHING down.  Hard.

It's really too bad these people are too ignorant, stubborn or just 
plain stupid to call any of us in to help.


sigh

Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:07 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

George
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-25 Thread Bob Moldashel
3500 registered users using a network that costs $400K per year to 
maintain!!!  That's $114 per subscriber!  Why not just pay to give them 
DSL!   LOL


--
Bob Moldashel
Lakeland Communications, Inc.
Broadband Deployment Group
1350 Lincoln Avenue
Holbrook, New York 11741 USA
800-479-9195 Toll Free US  Canada
631-585-5558 Fax
516-551-1131 Cell

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-25 Thread Tom DeReggi

OK. You mentioned some convenient factors regarding Tropos.
But what software benefits does it have over other MESH that will allow it 
to work better than other mesh?
Thats what really matters, and I'm not sure that they have a superior 
software platform.  Refering to intelligent routing and such. How does it 
handle when a path goes bad? Any comment on that?


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes


A Tropos unit has a 1W transmitter, is capable of being powered via PoE or 
via AC delivered through standard outlets as well as a variety of 
photo-cell taps including high-voltage ones. When powered with AC, it is 
capable of providing PoE power out of its Ethernet ports supporting 
equipment from Motorola and Trango even though neither using standard PoE. 
It mounts like a dream, includes level bubbles for perfect orientation, and 
units can be slid into and out of place with only a single screw enabling 
nodes to be changed in less than 5 minutes. Quite simply, a Tropos unit is 
beautifully engineered.


Where can I find the parts to make the same thing in a single package?

-Matt

chris cooper wrote:


Why not just buy the cards, boards, antennas and make a few yourself?

c

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:46 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

Then there are companies like airmatrix that charge less than 1k per
node.
The key with mesh is density, and many mesh startup's fail because they
Underbuild their networks.

-

Jeff



On 4/24/06 7:53 AM, John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



I don't know what equipment they are using, but Cisco AP1500's (mesh)


are


abnout $3700 each and Cisco recommends 18-20 per square mile. Thats


$74,000


for the boxes plus antennas, mounts, POE and install.

John




-Original Message-
From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:26 AM
To: ''WISPA General List''
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

$173K per mile build out cost?  Somebody just bought a new boat..

c

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


On


Behalf Of George
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:08 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

George
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date:


4/14/2006


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/







--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-25 Thread Peter R.

Bob Moldashel wrote:

3500 registered users using a network that costs $400K per year to 
maintain!!!  That's $114 per subscriber!  Why not just pay to give 
them DSL!   LOL



You laugh, but there are ISPs with less than 50 broadband customers.


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-25 Thread Dustin Jurman
That's 114 a year,  it's 9.50 a sub on a monthly rate.  

DSJ

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Peter R.
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 8:57 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

Bob Moldashel wrote:

 3500 registered users using a network that costs $400K per year to 
 maintain!!!  That's $114 per subscriber!  Why not just pay to give 
 them DSL!   LOL

You laugh, but there are ISPs with less than 50 broadband customers.


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/











-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-25 Thread John J. Thomas

-Original Message-
From: George [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 09:02 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

John J. Thomas wrote:
 inline...


 First off, the WISPs have to have the guts to talk to the city. Many simply 
 refuse to do so, and are probably going to get the Muni WiFi shoved down 
 their throats.


I don't want to turn this into a battle of ideals.

George, you are welcome to believe anything that you want. Here are some facts;
1. I work for Clare Computer Solutions and we are a Cisco Mesh certified 
network Integrator.
2. Cities have approached US to install their networks
3. These cities are not San Francisco sized, they are probably populations 
100,000 and smaller.
4. They are spending the money to put in infrastructure for City workers, 
first. Many are looking at providing Internet access second.



But how many local wisps have been chosen to date?
I bet Joe laura in NO got passed over without much consideration to him.
Joe is on this list, let him chime in here.

 Second, the cities are mostly going to use 2.4 GHz for access and 5.7-5.8 
 GHz for backhauls. WISP's will need to use 5.25-5.25 GHz and 900 MHz.


Almost every wisp today is using 2.4 to reach the customer and 5 gig for
infrastructure and high end customers. Are you saying that wisps have to
move off the existing spectrum and replace their equipment?

I am not saying that WISPS have to move off of 2.4. I am saying that if WISPs 
want to provide top quality service, then they may need to move off of 2.4 as 
it is getting crowded in lots of areas.


 In a word, service. The city will only be offering WiFi access-period. They 
 won't be going out to peoples houses and doing installs, fixing virii, doing 
 firewalls, etc.


Here is a scenario, if a potential customer who is on the fence while
deciding to go to broadband was to hear that a new muni free wifi system
is going to come on line or he can buy now with his local wisp, which
choice is the average consumer going to make?

Most are going to try the muni first. Some are going to be unsatisfied and will 
look for a better deal. I'll give you an example. I had 384k SDSL to my house 
and it was costing me $152 per month. In order to save money, I dropped the 
SDSL in favor of a cable modem. The cable modem can do 6 meg down and about 
384k up for $43 per month and has been verified by DSLreports. Even my wife 
thinks the SDSL was better, I just couldn't afford it anymore. If someone in 
Antioch CA were even offering wireless service at $42 per month, I would be 
there. There is a subset of people that want quality, and are willing to pay 
for it. Two questions come up-can you deliver and are there enough to keep you 
from starving?




The support scenario happens long after the fact.

George
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-25 Thread John J. Thomas
Cities don't want home brew, they generally want something that says Cisco on 
the side. Every city that we ahve recently talked to either has a Cisco 
Catalyst 6500 at teh core or has written a RFP to buy a switch that directly 
indicates a Catalyst 6500. Note, I am talking about cities with populationd of  
25,000 and larger, I can't speak for the smaller towns.

John


-Original Message-
From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:00 AM
To: ''WISPA General List''
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

Why not just buy the cards, boards, antennas and make a few yourself?

c

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:46 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

Then there are companies like airmatrix that charge less than 1k per
node.
The key with mesh is density, and many mesh startup's fail because they
Underbuild their networks.

-

Jeff



On 4/24/06 7:53 AM, John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I don't know what equipment they are using, but Cisco AP1500's (mesh)
are
 abnout $3700 each and Cisco recommends 18-20 per square mile. Thats
$74,000
 for the boxes plus antennas, mounts, POE and install.

 John


 -Original Message-
 From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:26 AM
 To: ''WISPA General List''
 Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

 $173K per mile build out cost?  Somebody just bought a new boat..

 c

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
 Behalf Of George
 Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:08 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

 I am not a fan of muni wireless.

 George
 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



 --
 Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
 Checked by AVG Free Edition.
 Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date:
4/14/2006


 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-25 Thread John J. Thomas
So, in Atlanta, the trees are so dense that a 5 GHz radio putting out 26 dBm 
into a 7.5 dB omni can't go 2500 feet?

John



-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:53 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

Jack Unger wrote:

 A multi-band mesh node does the backhaul on 5 GHz (sometimes with more 
 than one 5 GHz radio). This reduces (but certainly doesn't eliminate) 
 the 2.4 GHz self-interference and other-network-interference level.

You can't use 5 Ghz to go through trees here in Atlanta, so that won't 
help you. Multi-band mesh nodes simple don't work here.

-Matt

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-25 Thread Brian Whigham

Bob,
It's $9.50 per month per user, after only 50 days of evangelizing.  Not 
even the SBCs of the world are selling it for that.  And as soon as 
grandma Jones and Bob down the street figure out what's going on, 
they'll sign up, too.  So it will only be $4.16/mo. when they hit the 
8,000 mark.  Assume 2.77 persons per household (using Kissimmee census 
data) and you have 10,108 households plus a guestimate of 2000 
businesses (based on Kissimees 3900 business count).  And maybe they'll 
get 75% penetration (remember, the service is 'free').  Businesses would 
be dumb not to use it at least as a backup connection.  Some mom and pop 
shops might be able to use it as the primary.


Now, consider that you're no longer dealing with households, but 
individuals.  I estimate about 65% are between ages 18 and 65.  Let's 
play dumb and say that nobody under 18 or older than 65 could make use 
of it.  That's 18,200 users.  Plus, I think tourism is one of St. Clouds 
biggest industries.  Add them in as potential users.  Plus, it's a bonus 
to business travelers.  If 75% of them subscribe, you have 15,000 
accounts.  That $4.16 drops to about $2.  And, the access is mobile, 
albeit spotty at this point.  So, you don't pay T-mobile for their 
hotspot, Sprint for EV-DO, and Bellsouth for DSL.


The city is the 1st in the country to offer free wi-fi citywide.  #1, 
'forefront', 'technologically friendly', 'advanced': these are coveted 
adjectives.  In what other way can a city be number one anymore?  That's 
a qualification that's hard to buy for $2.4m, even if it's not a perfect 
system.



Brian Whigham
Yonder Networks
800-770-3421
706-534-1515

Census Data for Kissimmee: 
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12/1236950.html



Bob Moldashel wrote:

3500 registered users using a network that costs $400K per year to 
maintain!!!  That's $114 per subscriber!  Why not just pay to give 
them DSL!   LOL



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-25 Thread Tom DeReggi
, because of it.  Internet down then 
becomes the pathetic excuse like the dog ate it.  User is screwed because 
an ISP offering QOS won't come deploy because to much market share lost to 
competition from FREE wifi.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 5:13 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes



Travis Johnson wrote:
You guys are all missing the point. If they contract with the local WISP, 
they don't get to create new jobs for the muni... instead, they are 
just helping a local business grow with local tax money.


Welcome to politics in the wireless arena. :(

Travis
Microserv


Exactly Travis, it's a socialist dream.

I wasn't aware of this until last week when I read an article about Salem 
Oregon's Open.org.


The City has been running open.org which is a full facilities based ISP 
with dial up, web hosting, DSL and wifi hot spots.


They charge 12.00 per month for dial up. Anybody can sell 12.00 dial up, 
nothing special here.


I'm not sure about the other businesspeople  on this list, but I have a 
hard time accepting that our government ought to be in *any* business. 
Never mind competing against the private sector.
Salem Oregon is not a small town with nobody servicing it, it's the State 
Capital and either the 2nd or 3rd largest city in the state. I don't buy 
that they provided these services because others wouldn't or couldn't, I 
believe it's just what it is, state run industry.


I thought that we went to war in Korea, Vietnam, Central America and 
almost with Russia to end communism and socialism and to further our 
capitalistic system.


So why should any government local or state decide to take over an 
industry and compete against business after what this country has stood 
for the entire 20th century?


This is where I find Muni anything to be appalling.

You hit it square on the head, it's politics and I don't believe any of us 
businesspeople want to include politics as part of our business.


George
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-25 Thread Brian Whigham

George,

Few people care about socialistic programs so long as their pockets are 
affected in a positive way.  Our government is not purely capitalistic, 
and was never designed to be.  Plus, access has become a commodity and a 
utility.  It's no surprise to me that governments try to regulate and 
sell it as such.  My town sells me water and sewer service.  They've 
privatized trash pickup, which is a disaster, in my opinion.


When viewing Internet access as a utility, it makes sense, in some 
cases, to have a government-sponsored option.  Munis may reach those on 
the other side of the digital divide.  It may increase outside investors 
interest in local investment.  Some providers are simply not going to 
reach out to small communities and rural areas.  And, more often, the 
only option will be from one ILEC.


Your example in Salem sounds like a good argument against muni ISP 
systems.  But, each case will be different.  Fortunately, our government 
is made up of elected officials.  We can vote them out as a community.  
Unfortunately, they may permanantly damage independant ISPs before the 
community has a chance to voice dissenting opinions.


I think Matt Larsen has the idea.  We won't stop these efforts in many 
cases, no matter how hard we try.  But, we might be able to ride the 
tide if we try to cooperate and provide assistance.



Brian Whigham
Yonder Networks
800-770-3421
706-534-1515


George wrote:


Travis Johnson wrote:

You guys are all missing the point. If they contract with the local 
WISP, they don't get to create new jobs for the muni... instead, 
they are just helping a local business grow with local tax money.


Welcome to politics in the wireless arena. :(

Travis
Microserv



Exactly Travis, it's a socialist dream.

I wasn't aware of this until last week when I read an article about 
Salem Oregon's Open.org.


The City has been running open.org which is a full facilities based 
ISP with dial up, web hosting, DSL and wifi hot spots.


They charge 12.00 per month for dial up. Anybody can sell 12.00 dial 
up, nothing special here.


I'm not sure about the other businesspeople  on this list, but I 
have a hard time accepting that our government ought to be in *any* 
business. Never mind competing against the private sector.
Salem Oregon is not a small town with nobody servicing it, it's the 
State Capital and either the 2nd or 3rd largest city in the state. I 
don't buy that they provided these services because others wouldn't or 
couldn't, I believe it's just what it is, state run industry.


I thought that we went to war in Korea, Vietnam, Central America and 
almost with Russia to end communism and socialism and to further our 
capitalistic system.


So why should any government local or state decide to take over an 
industry and compete against business after what this country has 
stood for the entire 20th century?


This is where I find Muni anything to be appalling.

You hit it square on the head, it's politics and I don't believe any 
of us businesspeople want to include politics as part of our business.


George


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-25 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
The real problem is that it won't be $400k.  It'll be at least twice that. 
It always is.  And, I didn't see anywhere that that included upstream 
connectivity?


Here's where this stuff gets sticky.  Out here we have a PUD that's put 
fiber to the home in.  They told people that it cost roughly $3,000 per 
gateway box on the side of the house.  But they really spent $15,000 once it 
was all installed!!!  They flat out didn't tell the whole story to the 
tax payers OR the press.  Deception through omission?  I think so.


I spend nearly 25% of their numbers to take care of a network with less than 
1/10th the customer base!  I don't, for a second, believe the $400,000 per 
year in expenses number.


I guess time will tell 'eh?
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - 
From: Brian Whigham [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 8:34 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes



Bob,
It's $9.50 per month per user, after only 50 days of evangelizing.  Not 
even the SBCs of the world are selling it for that.  And as soon as 
grandma Jones and Bob down the street figure out what's going on, they'll 
sign up, too.  So it will only be $4.16/mo. when they hit the 8,000 mark. 
Assume 2.77 persons per household (using Kissimmee census data) and you 
have 10,108 households plus a guestimate of 2000 businesses (based on 
Kissimees 3900 business count).  And maybe they'll get 75% penetration 
(remember, the service is 'free').  Businesses would be dumb not to use it 
at least as a backup connection.  Some mom and pop shops might be able to 
use it as the primary.


Now, consider that you're no longer dealing with households, but 
individuals.  I estimate about 65% are between ages 18 and 65.  Let's play 
dumb and say that nobody under 18 or older than 65 could make use of it. 
That's 18,200 users.  Plus, I think tourism is one of St. Clouds biggest 
industries.  Add them in as potential users.  Plus, it's a bonus to 
business travelers.  If 75% of them subscribe, you have 15,000 accounts. 
That $4.16 drops to about $2.  And, the access is mobile, albeit spotty at 
this point.  So, you don't pay T-mobile for their hotspot, Sprint for 
EV-DO, and Bellsouth for DSL.


The city is the 1st in the country to offer free wi-fi citywide.  #1, 
'forefront', 'technologically friendly', 'advanced': these are coveted 
adjectives.  In what other way can a city be number one anymore?  That's a 
qualification that's hard to buy for $2.4m, even if it's not a perfect 
system.



Brian Whigham
Yonder Networks
800-770-3421
706-534-1515

Census Data for Kissimmee: 
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12/1236950.html



Bob Moldashel wrote:

3500 registered users using a network that costs $400K per year to 
maintain!!!  That's $114 per subscriber!  Why not just pay to give them 
DSL!   LOL



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


[WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread George

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

George
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread chris cooper
$173K per mile build out cost?  Somebody just bought a new boat..

c

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of George
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:08 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

George
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



-- 
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Matt Liotta

I'll go ahead and predict that San Francisco will be a disaster.

-Matt

Jack Unger wrote:

Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni problems 
that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be done 
correctly and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to play a 
positive role in proper network design and operation however most muni 
networks are incorrectly designed by people with limited wireless 
experience (yes, that even includes some mesh network vendors) which 
will lead to network failure, waste of taxpayer money, and possible 
loss of jobs on the part of the city IT folks (not to mention the 
elected officials) who backed the networks without first learning 
about how wireless technology really works.

  jack

George wrote:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

George





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread George
I am doubting that wisps can actually accomadate the muni in most 
situations, unless they are closely involved with the design of the 
network, Talking spectrum use here.


As for going along with free muni wifi, How is a wisp going to operate 
if a muni is offering for free or at cut rate pricing?
And how are they going to expand if the spectrum is used up all over the 
place with unlicensed omni's on every corner.


George

Jack Unger wrote:
Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni problems 
that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be done correctly 
and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to play a positive 
role in proper network design and operation however most muni networks 
are incorrectly designed by people with limited wireless experience 
(yes, that even includes some mesh network vendors) which will lead to 
network failure, waste of taxpayer money, and possible loss of jobs on 
the part of the city IT folks (not to mention the elected officials) who 
backed the networks without first learning about how wireless technology 
really works.

  jack

George wrote:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

George





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread John J. Thomas
I don't know what equipment they are using, but Cisco AP1500's (mesh) are 
abnout $3700 each and Cisco recommends 18-20 per square mile. Thats $74,000 for 
the boxes plus antennas, mounts, POE and install.

John


-Original Message-
From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:26 AM
To: ''WISPA General List''
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

$173K per mile build out cost?  Somebody just bought a new boat..

c

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of George
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:08 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

George
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread John J. Thomas
You mean it's not already :-)

John


-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:36 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

I'll go ahead and predict that San Francisco will be a disaster.

-Matt

Jack Unger wrote:

 Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni problems 
 that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be done 
 correctly and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to play a 
 positive role in proper network design and operation however most muni 
 networks are incorrectly designed by people with limited wireless 
 experience (yes, that even includes some mesh network vendors) which 
 will lead to network failure, waste of taxpayer money, and possible 
 loss of jobs on the part of the city IT folks (not to mention the 
 elected officials) who backed the networks without first learning 
 about how wireless technology really works.
   jack

 George wrote:

 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

 I am not a fan of muni wireless.

 George



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Jack Unger

George,

Just a few brief responses and ideas (I'm getting ready to go flying 
across the country again).


1. Design - Yes, local WISPs must be allowed to participate in the 
network design for the reason you mention. Spectrum must be managed to 
avoid both interfering with the WISPs operation and to avoid the WISP 
interfering with the muni network. One area of cooperation is to have 
the WISP backhaul the muni access points.


2. The muni network should never promise free access for everyone 
(residential and business). The muni access should be limited to public 
areas, visitor use, and (possibly) as a backup (not primary) 
communications media for public safety workers in times of emergency. 
Muni networks (IMHO) should not be used to try to replace traditional 
business Internet access which for-profit ISPs and WISPs are already 
supplying.


3. WISPs must take the lead in educating their cities government 
officials about how wireless really works and the limitations of muni 
networks that the mesh equipment vendors avoid mentioning (like 
interference with existing wireless networks, self-interference from too 
many omnis on every corner, limited throughput capability, etc.). WISPs 
who just wait for the muni network to fail (and fail they will) are 
asking to be put out of business by well-meaning but 
wirelessly-uneducated City officials and IT personnel.


WISPs must do their best to play a positive role or risk loss of their 
business. When cities and WISPs both lose, guess who wins???


ATT wins and we all know that is not a fair, just, or beneficial 
outcome for anybody but ATT.

   jack


George wrote:

I am doubting that wisps can actually accomadate the muni in most 
situations, unless they are closely involved with the design of the 
network, Talking spectrum use here.


As for going along with free muni wifi, How is a wisp going to operate 
if a muni is offering for free or at cut rate pricing?
And how are they going to expand if the spectrum is used up all over the 
place with unlicensed omni's on every corner.


George

Jack Unger wrote:

Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni problems 
that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be done 
correctly and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to play a 
positive role in proper network design and operation however most muni 
networks are incorrectly designed by people with limited wireless 
experience (yes, that even includes some mesh network vendors) which 
will lead to network failure, waste of taxpayer money, and possible 
loss of jobs on the part of the city IT folks (not to mention the 
elected officials) who backed the networks without first learning 
about how wireless technology really works.

  jack

George wrote:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

George








--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Our next WISP Workshops are April 12-13 and April 26-27
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Brian Webster
Jack,
I hate to say it but didn't we say I told you so There is just 
not
enough spectrum to design networks like this to work with anything but
dedicated CPE devices with outdoor antennas. Simply flooding an area with
more signal to let laptops inside a house work will not solve the problem.
It just creates more noise on already maxed out spectrum. I really wish the
vendors and project stalwarts would admit this is a problem with these
networks and not gloss it over. Self interference and outside interference
are always going to be huge problems in these muni-networks. Everyone trying
to build on the fact that off the shelf consumer devices can access this
network will be the downfall. Wi-fi was never designed for a massive outdoor
deployment such as this and when you try to make up for the fact that you do
not have control over the CPE when it comes to proper RF planning you are
doomed to failure. Just my 2 cents.



Thank You,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com http://www.wirelessmapping.com


-Original Message-
From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:29 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes


Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni problems
that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be done correctly
and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to play a positive
role in proper network design and operation however most muni networks
are incorrectly designed by people with limited wireless experience
(yes, that even includes some mesh network vendors) which will lead to
network failure, waste of taxpayer money, and possible loss of jobs on
the part of the city IT folks (not to mention the elected officials) who
backed the networks without first learning about how wireless technology
really works.
   jack

George wrote:
 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

 I am not a fan of muni wireless.

 George

--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Our next WISP Workshops are April 12-13 and April 26-27
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Joe Laura
Same thing is happening here in New Orleans. I did talk to the city before
it was designed but when I told them that it would be impossible for every
houshold to pop open a laptop in their desired room the door was slammed
shut. They did not want to hear this. I built a small mesh out downtown just
for kicks a couple of years ago. Took my time and designed it the best it
could be. These guys that do not know the technology get this vision to do
whats impossible.
Superior Wireless
New Orleans,La.
www.superior1.com
- Original Message -
From: Brian Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:10 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes


 Jack,
 I hate to say it but didn't we say I told you so There is just not
 enough spectrum to design networks like this to work with anything but
 dedicated CPE devices with outdoor antennas. Simply flooding an area with
 more signal to let laptops inside a house work will not solve the problem.
 It just creates more noise on already maxed out spectrum. I really wish
the
 vendors and project stalwarts would admit this is a problem with these
 networks and not gloss it over. Self interference and outside interference
 are always going to be huge problems in these muni-networks. Everyone
trying
 to build on the fact that off the shelf consumer devices can access this
 network will be the downfall. Wi-fi was never designed for a massive
outdoor
 deployment such as this and when you try to make up for the fact that you
do
 not have control over the CPE when it comes to proper RF planning you are
 doomed to failure. Just my 2 cents.



 Thank You,
 Brian Webster
 www.wirelessmapping.com http://www.wirelessmapping.com


 -Original Message-
 From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:29 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes


 Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni problems
 that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be done correctly
 and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to play a positive
 role in proper network design and operation however most muni networks
 are incorrectly designed by people with limited wireless experience
 (yes, that even includes some mesh network vendors) which will lead to
 network failure, waste of taxpayer money, and possible loss of jobs on
 the part of the city IT folks (not to mention the elected officials) who
 backed the networks without first learning about how wireless technology
 really works.
jack

 George wrote:
  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups
 
  I am not a fan of muni wireless.
 
  George

 --
 Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
 Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
 True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
 Our next WISP Workshops are April 12-13 and April 26-27
 Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread John J. Thomas
inline...
-Original Message-
From: George [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:40 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

I am doubting that wisps can actually accomadate the muni in most 
situations, unless they are closely involved with the design of the 
network, Talking spectrum use here.

First off, the WISPs have to have the guts to talk to the city. Many simply 
refuse to do so, and are probably going to get the Muni WiFi shoved down their 
throats.

Second, the cities are mostly going to use 2.4 GHz for access and 5.7-5.8 GHz 
for backhauls. WISP's will need to use 5.25-5.25 GHz and 900 MHz.



As for going along with free muni wifi, How is a wisp going to operate 
if a muni is offering for free or at cut rate pricing?

In a word, service. The city will only be offering WiFi access-period. They 
won't be going out to peoples houses and doing installs, fixing virii, doing 
firewalls, etc.



And how are they going to expand if the spectrum is used up all over the 
place with unlicensed omni's on every corner.

George

Jack Unger wrote:
 Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni problems 
 that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be done correctly 
 and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to play a positive 
 role in proper network design and operation however most muni networks 
 are incorrectly designed by people with limited wireless experience 
 (yes, that even includes some mesh network vendors) which will lead to 
 network failure, waste of taxpayer money, and possible loss of jobs on 
 the part of the city IT folks (not to mention the elected officials) who 
 backed the networks without first learning about how wireless technology 
 really works.
   jack
 
 George wrote:
 
 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

 I am not a fan of muni wireless.

 George
 
 

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181

roflol

The city is selling signal boosters (I read that as amps) to anyone that 
wants them for $170?


Oh man, this deployment is gonna come CRASHING down.  Hard.

It's really too bad these people are too ignorant, stubborn or just plain 
stupid to call any of us in to help.


sigh

Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - 
From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:07 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

George
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread George

John J. Thomas wrote:

inline...




First off, the WISPs have to have the guts to talk to the city. Many simply 
refuse to do so, and are probably going to get the Muni WiFi shoved down their 
throats.



I don't want to turn this into a battle of ideals.

But how many local wisps have been chosen to date?
I bet Joe laura in NO got passed over without much consideration to him.
Joe is on this list, let him chime in here.


Second, the cities are mostly going to use 2.4 GHz for access and 5.7-5.8 GHz 
for backhauls. WISP's will need to use 5.25-5.25 GHz and 900 MHz.



Almost every wisp today is using 2.4 to reach the customer and 5 gig for 
infrastructure and high end customers. Are you saying that wisps have to 
move off the existing spectrum and replace their equipment?




In a word, service. The city will only be offering WiFi access-period. They 
won't be going out to peoples houses and doing installs, fixing virii, doing 
firewalls, etc.



Here is a scenario, if a potential customer who is on the fence while 
deciding to go to broadband was to hear that a new muni free wifi system 
is going to come on line or he can buy now with his local wisp, which 
choice is the average consumer going to make?


The support scenario happens long after the fact.

George
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
That one's easy.  They have a $400,000 per year budget.  The city should 
contract with the WISP for that.


Sheesh, 15 square miles.  I could do that with my eyes closed!

Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - 
From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:40 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes


I am doubting that wisps can actually accomadate the muni in most 
situations, unless they are closely involved with the design of the 
network, Talking spectrum use here.


As for going along with free muni wifi, How is a wisp going to operate if 
a muni is offering for free or at cut rate pricing?
And how are they going to expand if the spectrum is used up all over the 
place with unlicensed omni's on every corner.


George

Jack Unger wrote:
Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni problems 
that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be done correctly 
and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to play a positive role 
in proper network design and operation however most muni networks are 
incorrectly designed by people with limited wireless experience (yes, 
that even includes some mesh network vendors) which will lead to network 
failure, waste of taxpayer money, and possible loss of jobs on the part 
of the city IT folks (not to mention the elected officials) who backed 
the networks without first learning about how wireless technology really 
works.

  jack

George wrote:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

George





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Matt Liotta
No, they are selling higher powered CPE devices that act as a bridge 
connecting to the muni network and then act as a local AP to help lower 
powered laptops effectively use the service.


-Matt

Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:


roflol

The city is selling signal boosters (I read that as amps) to anyone 
that wants them for $170?


Oh man, this deployment is gonna come CRASHING down.  Hard.

It's really too bad these people are too ignorant, stubborn or just 
plain stupid to call any of us in to help.


sigh

Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:07 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

George
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Travis Johnson
You guys are all missing the point. If they contract with the local 
WISP, they don't get to create new jobs for the muni... instead, they 
are just helping a local business grow with local tax money.


Welcome to politics in the wireless arena. :(

Travis
Microserv

Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:

That one's easy.  They have a $400,000 per year budget.  The city 
should contract with the WISP for that.


Sheesh, 15 square miles.  I could do that with my eyes closed!

Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:40 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes


I am doubting that wisps can actually accomadate the muni in most 
situations, unless they are closely involved with the design of the 
network, Talking spectrum use here.


As for going along with free muni wifi, How is a wisp going to 
operate if a muni is offering for free or at cut rate pricing?
And how are they going to expand if the spectrum is used up all over 
the place with unlicensed omni's on every corner.


George

Jack Unger wrote:

Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni 
problems that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be 
done correctly and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to 
play a positive role in proper network design and operation however 
most muni networks are incorrectly designed by people with limited 
wireless experience (yes, that even includes some mesh network 
vendors) which will lead to network failure, waste of taxpayer 
money, and possible loss of jobs on the part of the city IT folks 
(not to mention the elected officials) who backed the networks 
without first learning about how wireless technology really works.

  jack

George wrote:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

George






--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Jeffrey Thomas
Then there are companies like airmatrix that charge less than 1k per node.
The key with mesh is density, and many mesh startup's fail because they
Underbuild their networks.

-

Jeff



On 4/24/06 7:53 AM, John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I don't know what equipment they are using, but Cisco AP1500's (mesh) are
 abnout $3700 each and Cisco recommends 18-20 per square mile. Thats $74,000
 for the boxes plus antennas, mounts, POE and install.
 
 John
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:26 AM
 To: ''WISPA General List''
 Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
 
 $173K per mile build out cost?  Somebody just bought a new boat..
 
 c
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of George
 Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:08 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
 
 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups
 
 I am not a fan of muni wireless.
 
 George
 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 
 
 --
 Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
 Checked by AVG Free Edition.
 Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006
 
 
 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 
 
 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Dawn DiPietro

All,

http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2005/050831a.html

   As part of the HP Metro-scale Wi-Fi solution, HP forged an alliance 
with Tropos Networks and Aptilo Networks to help large communities of 
all kinds - cities,
   government agencies, large medical center and universities - achieve 
significant new wireless capabilities, including enhanced collaboration 
and simplified secure
   access control through a standard high-speed Wi-Fi network. The 
Franklin and St. Cloud networks use products from Tropos and Aptilo as 
part of their overall

   network solutions.

Regards,

Dawn DiPietro




John J. Thomas wrote:

I don't know what equipment they are using, but Cisco AP1500's (mesh) are abnout $3700 each and Cisco recommends 18-20 per square mile. Thats $74,000 for the boxes plus antennas, mounts, POE and install. 


John

 


---
---

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread chris cooper
Why not just buy the cards, boards, antennas and make a few yourself?

c

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:46 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

Then there are companies like airmatrix that charge less than 1k per
node.
The key with mesh is density, and many mesh startup's fail because they
Underbuild their networks.

-

Jeff



On 4/24/06 7:53 AM, John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I don't know what equipment they are using, but Cisco AP1500's (mesh)
are
 abnout $3700 each and Cisco recommends 18-20 per square mile. Thats
$74,000
 for the boxes plus antennas, mounts, POE and install.
 
 John
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:26 AM
 To: ''WISPA General List''
 Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
 
 $173K per mile build out cost?  Somebody just bought a new boat..
 
 c
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
 Behalf Of George
 Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:08 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
 
 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups
 
 I am not a fan of muni wireless.
 
 George
 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 
 
 --
 Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
 Checked by AVG Free Edition.
 Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date:
4/14/2006
 
 
 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 
 
 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



-- 
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Jack Unger

Dawn,

Thanks for posting the St. Cloud PepLink and HP info.

Using standard CPE (PePLink)is very good but using Tropos nodes is very, 
very bad. Very bad because they only have one single 2.4 GHz radio so 
after 2 or 3 hops, all the throughput capability is gone not to mention 
that the interference level from having all the access and backhaul 
packets colliding on 2.4 GHz (along with any WISP and other 2.4 GHz 
network packets) will slow all the networks (muni and WISP) down 
further. I hate to finger anyone but Tropos' stubborn refusal or 
inability (anyone at Tropos listening???) to produce a 2-band mesh node 
is going to doom them to failure along with any big city that deploys 
their nodes without an extremely efficient point-to-multipoint backbone 
design on 5 GHz.


jack


Dawn DiPietro wrote:


http://www.peplink.com/060306.php

Date: March 7, 2006*
PePLink announces as the official Citywide Wireless CPE provider for 
City of St. Cloud in Florida  *


*Hong Kong, Mar 7, 2006 - *PePLink, a leader in citywide WiFi wireless 
broadband devices today announced the City of St. Cloud, FL, a suburb of 
Orlando, has chosen PePLink to be the official wireless CPE provider for 
the Cyber Spot, the City's 100% free citywide high-speed wireless 
Internet service.


With a reliable, secure, ease of use wireless CPE - PePLink Surf, every 
citizen or business in the city of St. Cloud can connect to the citywide 
wireless network at a high speed. The CPE greatly enhances the 
throughput and reliability of both up and down link compared with a 
wireless-enabled computer desktop or notebook computer.


The simple true plug and play nature of the PePLink Surf helps the 
citizens in St. Cloud to bring the wireless signal indoors with ease. At 
the same time, the PePLink Surf units can be remotely managed, monitored 
and provisioned by PePLink's carrier-grade management and reporting 
solution, PCMS (or PePLink Centralized Management System). This can 
ensure a scalable and rapid rollout of the wireless systems within a 
short period of time. This eliminates an onsite installation charge.


Being chosen by City of St. Cloud has further endorsed our capability 
to offer reliable wireless solutions to municipal wireless networks 
built with mesh network technology, said Alex Chan, Managing Director 
of PePLink. PePLink Surf together with PCMS is the complete solution 
specifically designed for today's citywide wireless networks.


PePLink Surf series consists of Surf 200BG and Surf 400BG. For more 
information on PePLink Surf series, please visit http://www.peplink.com 
http://www.peplink.com/.





Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:


roflol

The city is selling signal boosters (I read that as amps) to anyone 
that wants them for $170?


Oh man, this deployment is gonna come CRASHING down.  Hard.

It's really too bad these people are too ignorant, stubborn or just 
plain stupid to call any of us in to help.


sigh

Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:07 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

George
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/





---
---



--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Our next WISP Workshops are April 12-13 and April 26-27
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Matt Liotta
In recent post I explained that here in Atlanta you can only use a 
single 2.4 channel because of the noise floor. How is a multi-band mesh 
node going to work?


Maybe there is a reason the big muni projects keep selecting Tropos.

-Matt

Jack Unger wrote:


Dawn,

Thanks for posting the St. Cloud PepLink and HP info.

Using standard CPE (PePLink)is very good but using Tropos nodes is 
very, very bad. Very bad because they only have one single 2.4 GHz 
radio so after 2 or 3 hops, all the throughput capability is gone not 
to mention that the interference level from having all the access and 
backhaul packets colliding on 2.4 GHz (along with any WISP and other 
2.4 GHz network packets) will slow all the networks (muni and WISP) 
down further. I hate to finger anyone but Tropos' stubborn refusal 
or inability (anyone at Tropos listening???) to produce a 2-band mesh 
node is going to doom them to failure along with any big city that 
deploys their nodes without an extremely efficient point-to-multipoint 
backbone design on 5 GHz.


jack


Dawn DiPietro wrote:


http://www.peplink.com/060306.php

Date: March 7, 2006*
PePLink announces as the official Citywide Wireless CPE provider for 
City of St. Cloud in Florida  *


*Hong Kong, Mar 7, 2006 - *PePLink, a leader in citywide WiFi 
wireless broadband devices today announced the City of St. Cloud, FL, 
a suburb of Orlando, has chosen PePLink to be the official wireless 
CPE provider for the Cyber Spot, the City's 100% free citywide 
high-speed wireless Internet service.


With a reliable, secure, ease of use wireless CPE - PePLink Surf, 
every citizen or business in the city of St. Cloud can connect to the 
citywide wireless network at a high speed. The CPE greatly enhances 
the throughput and reliability of both up and down link compared with 
a wireless-enabled computer desktop or notebook computer.


The simple true plug and play nature of the PePLink Surf helps the 
citizens in St. Cloud to bring the wireless signal indoors with ease. 
At the same time, the PePLink Surf units can be remotely managed, 
monitored and provisioned by PePLink's carrier-grade management and 
reporting solution, PCMS (or PePLink Centralized Management System). 
This can ensure a scalable and rapid rollout of the wireless systems 
within a short period of time. This eliminates an onsite installation 
charge.


Being chosen by City of St. Cloud has further endorsed our 
capability to offer reliable wireless solutions to municipal wireless 
networks built with mesh network technology, said Alex Chan, 
Managing Director of PePLink. PePLink Surf together with PCMS is the 
complete solution specifically designed for today's citywide wireless 
networks.


PePLink Surf series consists of Surf 200BG and Surf 400BG. For more 
information on PePLink Surf series, please visit 
http://www.peplink.com http://www.peplink.com/.





Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:


roflol

The city is selling signal boosters (I read that as amps) to 
anyone that wants them for $170?


Oh man, this deployment is gonna come CRASHING down.  Hard.

It's really too bad these people are too ignorant, stubborn or just 
plain stupid to call any of us in to help.


sigh

Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own 
wisp!

64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:07 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

George
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/





---
---





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Brian Webster
Amen brother Matt! Excellent points and most of the reality of the muni
systems.



Thank You,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com http://www.wirelessmapping.com


-Original Message-
From: Matt Larsen - Lists [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:17 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes


George,

Unfortunately, every time that the public hears about problems with a
wifi network (muni or otherwise) it is going to reflect badly on all of
us.  After reading the article, it is pretty clear that the writer
picked out one sorehead and blew his problems up into something big.
The Bells want the Muni-Broadband efforts to fail badly, and they have
the added side benefit of making WISPs look bad in the process.

After having an opportunity to visit with Esme Vos of muniwireless.org
and several other community wireless advocates at the Freedom to Connect
conference, it is pretty clear that we should be embracing
muniwireless.  They need us badly - specifically our real-world
experience and in the field capability.  Many of the munis are being fed
a long line of bs from vendors and stories like this one out of St.
Cloud are going to be trumpeted as examples of muniwireless failure -
when the real failure is that govt officials and the citizens were given
unrealistic expectations.

Here are some of my responses to the common criticisms of muniwireless

1)  FREE service in my city is going to put me out of business
Response:  Not true.  Most of the FREE services are very low speed
connections (sub 256K) or are filled with non-bypassable  advertising.
Plus, there is no quality of service guarantee for a free service and
nonexistent tech support.There is plenty of opportunity to offer a
higher quality service that people are willing to pay for.   Don't
forget that most of the people who go for the FREE service are folks
that wouldn't pay for service anyway.  If they become users and want a
better level of service, there is a good chance that they will become
paying customers at some point in the future.

2)  Government money should not be used to compete with private industry
Response:  In most applications, muniwireless efforts are being explored
by the governmental entity to SAVE money.  If a muni can put in a
network for a cost of $100,000, but will save $60,000/year through
reduced telephone/cellphone/leased line expenses, then that is a big
WIN/WIN situation for everyone involved except the telcos.  Local
government spending generates a huge amount of revenue for the phone
companies.  Doesn't it make more sense for the city to put in its own
infrastructure and manage it locally than to spend it with
telcos/cellcos?  Savings from telecom revenue are only one of the many
ways that muni networks can generate substantial savings.  Decreased
labor, increased operational efficiency and many other benefits come
from muni networks.

3)  Municipal wireless networks duplicate efforts made my local WISPs
Response:  After talking to a lot of muniwireless people, the issue is
that munis would PREFER to work with a local WISP or ISP operator to get
their network going, but WISPs do such a poor job of promoting
themselves that most munis have no idea that there is someone operating
in their area.   Introduce yourself to the IT person in every town where
you provide service - do not give them an excuse for ignorance.  We are
generally more local than any other company that they will deal with,
and we have tons of practical experience and the ability to demo our
capabilities.   We should be exploiting these advantages to the highest
possible degree.  It will require you to become a participant in your
local government, but that is the best way to get what you want.

Every WISPA member should be watching their area diligently for
muniwireless opportunities in their area, and working hard to get in on
the ground floor.  I have done cooperative projects in ten towns in my
service area and all have been WIN/WIN for me and for the cities.   At
last check, these cites combined are saving $4000 a month over what they
were paying the telcos for the same or inferior level of service.  My
goal is to be taking $30,000/month out of the pockets of the local
telcos (Qwest and Embarq) within the next two years.  Just imagine what
kind of an impact muni networks would have on the telcos if  1
communities pulled an average of $1000 a month out of telcos and put it
into local infrastructure?   That is $1 million a month out of telco
coffers and into local economies.  What if the average savings was $5000
a month and 2 communities developed their own networks?   Even the
telcos will notice $10 million a month in declining revenues.  More
importantly, the influx into the local economy of that money (instead of
having it sucked out by the telco vampire) will make a big difference at
the local level.

WISPs should be taking a proactive, positive stance toward

Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Jack Unger

Matt,

Tropos has done a very good job when it comes to powering their node 
from a wide variety of sources. Unfortunately their fatal flaw is to 
insistence on clinging to their single-radio design. This means their 
nodes will always be throughput-limited, latency-limited, 
self-interference limited, and 2.4 GHz spectrum polluters. Any power and 
rf-savvy WISP could design an equally power-versatile mesh node but make 
it multi-band.

   jack


Matt Liotta wrote:

A Tropos unit has a 1W transmitter, is capable of being powered via PoE 
or via AC delivered through standard outlets as well as a variety of 
photo-cell taps including high-voltage ones. When powered with AC, it is 
capable of providing PoE power out of its Ethernet ports supporting 
equipment from Motorola and Trango even though neither using standard 
PoE. It mounts like a dream, includes level bubbles for perfect 
orientation, and units can be slid into and out of place with only a 
single screw enabling nodes to be changed in less than 5 minutes. Quite 
simply, a Tropos unit is beautifully engineered.


Where can I find the parts to make the same thing in a single package?

-Matt

chris cooper wrote:


Why not just buy the cards, boards, antennas and make a few yourself?

c

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:46 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

Then there are companies like airmatrix that charge less than 1k per
node.
The key with mesh is density, and many mesh startup's fail because they
Underbuild their networks.

-

Jeff



On 4/24/06 7:53 AM, John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 


I don't know what equipment they are using, but Cisco AP1500's (mesh)
  


are
 


abnout $3700 each and Cisco recommends 18-20 per square mile. Thats
  


$74,000
 


for the boxes plus antennas, mounts, POE and install.

John


  


-Original Message-
From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:26 AM
To: ''WISPA General List''
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

$173K per mile build out cost?  Somebody just bought a new boat..

c

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



On
 


Behalf Of George
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:08 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

George
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date:



4/14/2006
 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
  




 





--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Our next WISP Workshops are April 12-13 and April 26-27
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Brian Webster
HP likes to design these Tropos networks by never having more than 2 hops
before it gets put on some sort of backhaul. This in theory works well but
in reality, you still run out of 2.4 GHz channels to place the access nodes
on. Remember each radio/mesh unit is at the same height as every other one
thus firing their signal directly in to the antenna of all neighboring
nodes. The users may not see the noise but node to node traffic certainly
hears it. When the mesh radio is deaf because of noise, the network just
plain fails to work. End of story. Mesh will simply not work on a loaded
residential user based system without a lot more spectrum. People are trying
to fight the laws of physics. Ask any ham radio guy about this. When they
originally built packet radio networks back in the early 90's, they found
you needed separate channels to make it work (and that was only 1200 baud).
San Francisco, Philly and any other muni network are going to fail based on
this problem. The idea and premise of a muni network is solid based on the
points Matt Larsen brought up but as Jack and others have stated, they have
been sold on all of the positive benefits but never get told the
limitations. The typical IT mentality is that they can throw more money at
the problem to increase capacity. This is simply not true based on the
limited number of useable channels. Sad thing is there will be a lot of
taxpayer money wasted to prove this point.



Thank You,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com http://www.wirelessmapping.com


-Original Message-
From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 1:22 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes


Dawn,

Thanks for posting the St. Cloud PepLink and HP info.

Using standard CPE (PePLink)is very good but using Tropos nodes is very,
very bad. Very bad because they only have one single 2.4 GHz radio so
after 2 or 3 hops, all the throughput capability is gone not to mention
that the interference level from having all the access and backhaul
packets colliding on 2.4 GHz (along with any WISP and other 2.4 GHz
network packets) will slow all the networks (muni and WISP) down
further. I hate to finger anyone but Tropos' stubborn refusal or
inability (anyone at Tropos listening???) to produce a 2-band mesh node
is going to doom them to failure along with any big city that deploys
their nodes without an extremely efficient point-to-multipoint backbone
design on 5 GHz.

jack


Dawn DiPietro wrote:

 http://www.peplink.com/060306.php

 Date: March 7, 2006*
 PePLink announces as the official Citywide Wireless CPE provider for
 City of St. Cloud in Florida  *

 *Hong Kong, Mar 7, 2006 - *PePLink, a leader in citywide WiFi wireless
 broadband devices today announced the City of St. Cloud, FL, a suburb of
 Orlando, has chosen PePLink to be the official wireless CPE provider for
 the Cyber Spot, the City's 100% free citywide high-speed wireless
 Internet service.

 With a reliable, secure, ease of use wireless CPE - PePLink Surf, every
 citizen or business in the city of St. Cloud can connect to the citywide
 wireless network at a high speed. The CPE greatly enhances the
 throughput and reliability of both up and down link compared with a
 wireless-enabled computer desktop or notebook computer.

 The simple true plug and play nature of the PePLink Surf helps the
 citizens in St. Cloud to bring the wireless signal indoors with ease. At
 the same time, the PePLink Surf units can be remotely managed, monitored
 and provisioned by PePLink's carrier-grade management and reporting
 solution, PCMS (or PePLink Centralized Management System). This can
 ensure a scalable and rapid rollout of the wireless systems within a
 short period of time. This eliminates an onsite installation charge.

 Being chosen by City of St. Cloud has further endorsed our capability
 to offer reliable wireless solutions to municipal wireless networks
 built with mesh network technology, said Alex Chan, Managing Director
 of PePLink. PePLink Surf together with PCMS is the complete solution
 specifically designed for today's citywide wireless networks.

 PePLink Surf series consists of Surf 200BG and Surf 400BG. For more
 information on PePLink Surf series, please visit http://www.peplink.com
 http://www.peplink.com/.




 Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:

 roflol

 The city is selling signal boosters (I read that as amps) to anyone
 that wants them for $170?

 Oh man, this deployment is gonna come CRASHING down.  Hard.

 It's really too bad these people are too ignorant, stubborn or just
 plain stupid to call any of us in to help.

 sigh

 Marlon
 (509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
 64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
 www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
 www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam

Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Jack Unger

Matt,

A multi-band mesh node does the backhaul on 5 GHz (sometimes with more 
than one 5 GHz radio). This reduces (but certainly doesn't eliminate) 
the 2.4 GHz self-interference and other-network-interference level.


The reason the big muni projects often select Tropos is that Tropos has 
the best marketing effort out there and has been in the game longer 
than most other mesh equipment vendors.


I predict it won't take too may big Tropos-based muni networks to fail 
before future big-city muni administrators will see the light and 
chose other, more throughput-capable mesh vendors.


jack


Matt Liotta wrote:

In recent post I explained that here in Atlanta you can only use a 
single 2.4 channel because of the noise floor. How is a multi-band mesh 
node going to work?


Maybe there is a reason the big muni projects keep selecting Tropos.

-Matt

Jack Unger wrote:


Dawn,

Thanks for posting the St. Cloud PepLink and HP info.

Using standard CPE (PePLink)is very good but using Tropos nodes is 
very, very bad. Very bad because they only have one single 2.4 GHz 
radio so after 2 or 3 hops, all the throughput capability is gone not 
to mention that the interference level from having all the access and 
backhaul packets colliding on 2.4 GHz (along with any WISP and other 
2.4 GHz network packets) will slow all the networks (muni and WISP) 
down further. I hate to finger anyone but Tropos' stubborn refusal 
or inability (anyone at Tropos listening???) to produce a 2-band mesh 
node is going to doom them to failure along with any big city that 
deploys their nodes without an extremely efficient point-to-multipoint 
backbone design on 5 GHz.


jack


Dawn DiPietro wrote:


http://www.peplink.com/060306.php

Date: March 7, 2006*
PePLink announces as the official Citywide Wireless CPE provider for 
City of St. Cloud in Florida  *


*Hong Kong, Mar 7, 2006 - *PePLink, a leader in citywide WiFi 
wireless broadband devices today announced the City of St. Cloud, FL, 
a suburb of Orlando, has chosen PePLink to be the official wireless 
CPE provider for the Cyber Spot, the City's 100% free citywide 
high-speed wireless Internet service.


With a reliable, secure, ease of use wireless CPE - PePLink Surf, 
every citizen or business in the city of St. Cloud can connect to the 
citywide wireless network at a high speed. The CPE greatly enhances 
the throughput and reliability of both up and down link compared with 
a wireless-enabled computer desktop or notebook computer.


The simple true plug and play nature of the PePLink Surf helps the 
citizens in St. Cloud to bring the wireless signal indoors with ease. 
At the same time, the PePLink Surf units can be remotely managed, 
monitored and provisioned by PePLink's carrier-grade management and 
reporting solution, PCMS (or PePLink Centralized Management System). 
This can ensure a scalable and rapid rollout of the wireless systems 
within a short period of time. This eliminates an onsite installation 
charge.


Being chosen by City of St. Cloud has further endorsed our 
capability to offer reliable wireless solutions to municipal wireless 
networks built with mesh network technology, said Alex Chan, 
Managing Director of PePLink. PePLink Surf together with PCMS is the 
complete solution specifically designed for today's citywide wireless 
networks.


PePLink Surf series consists of Surf 200BG and Surf 400BG. For more 
information on PePLink Surf series, please visit 
http://www.peplink.com http://www.peplink.com/.





Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:


roflol

The city is selling signal boosters (I read that as amps) to 
anyone that wants them for $170?


Oh man, this deployment is gonna come CRASHING down.  Hard.

It's really too bad these people are too ignorant, stubborn or just 
plain stupid to call any of us in to help.


sigh

Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own 
wisp!

64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:07 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

George
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/





---
---







--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Our next WISP Workshops are April 12-13 and April 26-27
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227

Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Matt Liotta

Jack Unger wrote:

A multi-band mesh node does the backhaul on 5 GHz (sometimes with more 
than one 5 GHz radio). This reduces (but certainly doesn't eliminate) 
the 2.4 GHz self-interference and other-network-interference level.


You can't use 5 Ghz to go through trees here in Atlanta, so that won't 
help you. Multi-band mesh nodes simple don't work here.


-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Joe Laura
So to sum it up IMO physics and limited spectrum makes a muni system
impossible to get the coverage they expect. Dont get me wrong, ups just
dropped off a mag mount friday to me that I am installing on the van
tomorrow. Even if I have to drive 3 blocks or so to connect and pull mail or
peek at my intermapper will be a plus. Joe
- Original Message - 
From: Brian Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:44 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes


 HP likes to design these Tropos networks by never having more than 2 hops
 before it gets put on some sort of backhaul. This in theory works well but
 in reality, you still run out of 2.4 GHz channels to place the access
nodes
 on. Remember each radio/mesh unit is at the same height as every other one
 thus firing their signal directly in to the antenna of all neighboring
 nodes. The users may not see the noise but node to node traffic certainly
 hears it. When the mesh radio is deaf because of noise, the network just
 plain fails to work. End of story. Mesh will simply not work on a loaded
 residential user based system without a lot more spectrum. People are
trying
 to fight the laws of physics. Ask any ham radio guy about this. When they
 originally built packet radio networks back in the early 90's, they found
 you needed separate channels to make it work (and that was only 1200
baud).
 San Francisco, Philly and any other muni network are going to fail based
on
 this problem. The idea and premise of a muni network is solid based on the
 points Matt Larsen brought up but as Jack and others have stated, they
have
 been sold on all of the positive benefits but never get told the
 limitations. The typical IT mentality is that they can throw more money at
 the problem to increase capacity. This is simply not true based on the
 limited number of useable channels. Sad thing is there will be a lot of
 taxpayer money wasted to prove this point.



 Thank You,
 Brian Webster
 www.wirelessmapping.com http://www.wirelessmapping.com


 -Original Message-
 From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 1:22 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes


 Dawn,

 Thanks for posting the St. Cloud PepLink and HP info.

 Using standard CPE (PePLink)is very good but using Tropos nodes is very,
 very bad. Very bad because they only have one single 2.4 GHz radio so
 after 2 or 3 hops, all the throughput capability is gone not to mention
 that the interference level from having all the access and backhaul
 packets colliding on 2.4 GHz (along with any WISP and other 2.4 GHz
 network packets) will slow all the networks (muni and WISP) down
 further. I hate to finger anyone but Tropos' stubborn refusal or
 inability (anyone at Tropos listening???) to produce a 2-band mesh node
 is going to doom them to failure along with any big city that deploys
 their nodes without an extremely efficient point-to-multipoint backbone
 design on 5 GHz.

 jack


 Dawn DiPietro wrote:

  http://www.peplink.com/060306.php
 
  Date: March 7, 2006*
  PePLink announces as the official Citywide Wireless CPE provider for
  City of St. Cloud in Florida  *
 
  *Hong Kong, Mar 7, 2006 - *PePLink, a leader in citywide WiFi wireless
  broadband devices today announced the City of St. Cloud, FL, a suburb of
  Orlando, has chosen PePLink to be the official wireless CPE provider for
  the Cyber Spot, the City's 100% free citywide high-speed wireless
  Internet service.
 
  With a reliable, secure, ease of use wireless CPE - PePLink Surf, every
  citizen or business in the city of St. Cloud can connect to the citywide
  wireless network at a high speed. The CPE greatly enhances the
  throughput and reliability of both up and down link compared with a
  wireless-enabled computer desktop or notebook computer.
 
  The simple true plug and play nature of the PePLink Surf helps the
  citizens in St. Cloud to bring the wireless signal indoors with ease. At
  the same time, the PePLink Surf units can be remotely managed, monitored
  and provisioned by PePLink's carrier-grade management and reporting
  solution, PCMS (or PePLink Centralized Management System). This can
  ensure a scalable and rapid rollout of the wireless systems within a
  short period of time. This eliminates an onsite installation charge.
 
  Being chosen by City of St. Cloud has further endorsed our capability
  to offer reliable wireless solutions to municipal wireless networks
  built with mesh network technology, said Alex Chan, Managing Director
  of PePLink. PePLink Surf together with PCMS is the complete solution
  specifically designed for today's citywide wireless networks.
 
  PePLink Surf series consists of Surf 200BG and Surf 400BG. For more
  information on PePLink Surf series, please visit http://www.peplink.com
  http://www.peplink.com/.
 
 
 
 
  Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982

Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Matt Liotta
You make the assumption that the Tropos nodes have little to no 
attenuation between them, which is a poor assumption. A useful exercise 
is to drive around and make a list of Metrocom nodes. You'll find that a 
very small percentage have LOS or even near-LOS to each other. Metrocom 
certainly was able to provide ubiquitous coverage long before the muni 
Wi-Fi was all the rage. Where was your physics then?


-Matt

Brian Webster wrote:


HP likes to design these Tropos networks by never having more than 2 hops
before it gets put on some sort of backhaul. This in theory works well but
in reality, you still run out of 2.4 GHz channels to place the access nodes
on. Remember each radio/mesh unit is at the same height as every other one
thus firing their signal directly in to the antenna of all neighboring
nodes. The users may not see the noise but node to node traffic certainly
hears it. When the mesh radio is deaf because of noise, the network just
plain fails to work. End of story. Mesh will simply not work on a loaded
residential user based system without a lot more spectrum. People are trying
to fight the laws of physics. Ask any ham radio guy about this. When they
originally built packet radio networks back in the early 90's, they found
you needed separate channels to make it work (and that was only 1200 baud).
San Francisco, Philly and any other muni network are going to fail based on
this problem. The idea and premise of a muni network is solid based on the
points Matt Larsen brought up but as Jack and others have stated, they have
been sold on all of the positive benefits but never get told the
limitations. The typical IT mentality is that they can throw more money at
the problem to increase capacity. This is simply not true based on the
limited number of useable channels. Sad thing is there will be a lot of
taxpayer money wasted to prove this point.



Thank You,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com http://www.wirelessmapping.com


-Original Message-
From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 1:22 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes


Dawn,

Thanks for posting the St. Cloud PepLink and HP info.

Using standard CPE (PePLink)is very good but using Tropos nodes is very,
very bad. Very bad because they only have one single 2.4 GHz radio so
after 2 or 3 hops, all the throughput capability is gone not to mention
that the interference level from having all the access and backhaul
packets colliding on 2.4 GHz (along with any WISP and other 2.4 GHz
network packets) will slow all the networks (muni and WISP) down
further. I hate to finger anyone but Tropos' stubborn refusal or
inability (anyone at Tropos listening???) to produce a 2-band mesh node
is going to doom them to failure along with any big city that deploys
their nodes without an extremely efficient point-to-multipoint backbone
design on 5 GHz.

jack


Dawn DiPietro wrote:

 


http://www.peplink.com/060306.php

Date: March 7, 2006*
PePLink announces as the official Citywide Wireless CPE provider for
City of St. Cloud in Florida  *

*Hong Kong, Mar 7, 2006 - *PePLink, a leader in citywide WiFi wireless
broadband devices today announced the City of St. Cloud, FL, a suburb of
Orlando, has chosen PePLink to be the official wireless CPE provider for
the Cyber Spot, the City's 100% free citywide high-speed wireless
Internet service.

With a reliable, secure, ease of use wireless CPE - PePLink Surf, every
citizen or business in the city of St. Cloud can connect to the citywide
wireless network at a high speed. The CPE greatly enhances the
throughput and reliability of both up and down link compared with a
wireless-enabled computer desktop or notebook computer.

The simple true plug and play nature of the PePLink Surf helps the
citizens in St. Cloud to bring the wireless signal indoors with ease. At
the same time, the PePLink Surf units can be remotely managed, monitored
and provisioned by PePLink's carrier-grade management and reporting
solution, PCMS (or PePLink Centralized Management System). This can
ensure a scalable and rapid rollout of the wireless systems within a
short period of time. This eliminates an onsite installation charge.

Being chosen by City of St. Cloud has further endorsed our capability
to offer reliable wireless solutions to municipal wireless networks
built with mesh network technology, said Alex Chan, Managing Director
of PePLink. PePLink Surf together with PCMS is the complete solution
specifically designed for today's citywide wireless networks.

PePLink Surf series consists of Surf 200BG and Surf 400BG. For more
information on PePLink Surf series, please visit http://www.peplink.com
http://www.peplink.com/.




Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:

   


roflol

The city is selling signal boosters (I read that as amps) to anyone
that wants them for $170?

Oh man, this deployment is gonna come CRASHING down.  Hard.

It's really too bad

Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Jack Unger
Then the 5 GHz backhaul network must have antennas that are raised above 
the trees. Another option is to backhaul with city-owned fiber. 
Backhauling on 900 MHz is a possible third option. All it takes is rf 
knowledge, creativity, and cooperation.

 jack

Matt Liotta wrote:


Jack Unger wrote:

A multi-band mesh node does the backhaul on 5 GHz (sometimes with more 
than one 5 GHz radio). This reduces (but certainly doesn't eliminate) 
the 2.4 GHz self-interference and other-network-interference level.


You can't use 5 Ghz to go through trees here in Atlanta, so that won't 
help you. Multi-band mesh nodes simple don't work here.


-Matt



--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Our next WISP Workshops are April 12-13 and April 26-27
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Jack Unger

Matt,

To answer your questions (and they are good questions)...

1. The attenuation between 2.4 GHz nodes is not enough to prevent each 
node from hearing multiple other nodes as noise (thus more packet 
retransmissions and more reduced throughtput). This requires 
understanding link budgets, signal-to-noise ratios, and receiver 
threshold specifications.


2. Metricom is not a good comparison because:
a. They were frequency hoppers on 900 MHz.
b. They promised low (128kbps and then 256kbps, if memory serves) 
throughput. This doesn't compare to today's expected throughput levels.
c. They eventually went to a two-band node that backhauled on 2.4 GHz. 
so they could increase throughput.

d. Metricom then went out of business.

Physics is still physics and companies need to but don't yet understand 
wireless physics. They need this understanding before bidding on muni 
projects and before they make these high-expectation, wireless-for-all, 
triple-play (voice, video, data) promises to public officials. Once a 
muni network is engineered incorrectly and deployed incorrectly, it may 
well take as much additional money to fix it (if it even can be fixed) 
as it took to deploy it in the first place.


jack


Matt Liotta wrote:

You make the assumption that the Tropos nodes have little to no 
attenuation between them, which is a poor assumption. A useful exercise 
is to drive around and make a list of Metrocom nodes. You'll find that a 
very small percentage have LOS or even near-LOS to each other. Metrocom 
certainly was able to provide ubiquitous coverage long before the muni 
Wi-Fi was all the rage. Where was your physics then?


-Matt

Brian Webster wrote:


HP likes to design these Tropos networks by never having more than 2 hops
before it gets put on some sort of backhaul. This in theory works well 
but
in reality, you still run out of 2.4 GHz channels to place the access 
nodes
on. Remember each radio/mesh unit is at the same height as every other 
one

thus firing their signal directly in to the antenna of all neighboring
nodes. The users may not see the noise but node to node traffic certainly
hears it. When the mesh radio is deaf because of noise, the network just
plain fails to work. End of story. Mesh will simply not work on a loaded
residential user based system without a lot more spectrum. People are 
trying

to fight the laws of physics. Ask any ham radio guy about this. When they
originally built packet radio networks back in the early 90's, they found
you needed separate channels to make it work (and that was only 1200 
baud).
San Francisco, Philly and any other muni network are going to fail 
based on
this problem. The idea and premise of a muni network is solid based on 
the
points Matt Larsen brought up but as Jack and others have stated, they 
have

been sold on all of the positive benefits but never get told the
limitations. The typical IT mentality is that they can throw more 
money at

the problem to increase capacity. This is simply not true based on the
limited number of useable channels. Sad thing is there will be a lot of
taxpayer money wasted to prove this point.



Thank You,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com http://www.wirelessmapping.com


-Original Message-
From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 1:22 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes


Dawn,

Thanks for posting the St. Cloud PepLink and HP info.

Using standard CPE (PePLink)is very good but using Tropos nodes is very,
very bad. Very bad because they only have one single 2.4 GHz radio so
after 2 or 3 hops, all the throughput capability is gone not to mention
that the interference level from having all the access and backhaul
packets colliding on 2.4 GHz (along with any WISP and other 2.4 GHz
network packets) will slow all the networks (muni and WISP) down
further. I hate to finger anyone but Tropos' stubborn refusal or
inability (anyone at Tropos listening???) to produce a 2-band mesh node
is going to doom them to failure along with any big city that deploys
their nodes without an extremely efficient point-to-multipoint backbone
design on 5 GHz.

jack


Dawn DiPietro wrote:

 


http://www.peplink.com/060306.php

Date: March 7, 2006*
PePLink announces as the official Citywide Wireless CPE provider for
City of St. Cloud in Florida  *

*Hong Kong, Mar 7, 2006 - *PePLink, a leader in citywide WiFi wireless
broadband devices today announced the City of St. Cloud, FL, a suburb of
Orlando, has chosen PePLink to be the official wireless CPE provider for
the Cyber Spot, the City's 100% free citywide high-speed wireless
Internet service.

With a reliable, secure, ease of use wireless CPE - PePLink Surf, every
citizen or business in the city of St. Cloud can connect to the citywide
wireless network at a high speed. The CPE greatly enhances the
throughput and reliability of both up and down link compared with a
wireless-enabled computer

Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Matt Liotta
How do you raise the antennas above the trees without building really 
tall poles? Trees around here are 60-70ft.


City-owned fiber only exists in places with enough density that there 
aren't any trees to begin with. Residential areas generally have lots of 
trees and no reason for fiber runs.


900Mhz won't get you much throughput; certainly not enough to offer an 
alternative to DSL.


-Matt

Jack Unger wrote:

Then the 5 GHz backhaul network must have antennas that are raised 
above the trees. Another option is to backhaul with city-owned fiber. 
Backhauling on 900 MHz is a possible third option. All it takes is rf 
knowledge, creativity, and cooperation.

 jack

Matt Liotta wrote:


Jack Unger wrote:

A multi-band mesh node does the backhaul on 5 GHz (sometimes with 
more than one 5 GHz radio). This reduces (but certainly doesn't 
eliminate) the 2.4 GHz self-interference and 
other-network-interference level.


You can't use 5 Ghz to go through trees here in Atlanta, so that 
won't help you. Multi-band mesh nodes simple don't work here.


-Matt





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Jack Unger
OK Matt, being a creative person, you can then suggest the use of DSL 
for the backhaul...

 jack

Matt Liotta wrote:

How do you raise the antennas above the trees without building really 
tall poles? Trees around here are 60-70ft.


City-owned fiber only exists in places with enough density that there 
aren't any trees to begin with. Residential areas generally have lots of 
trees and no reason for fiber runs.


900Mhz won't get you much throughput; certainly not enough to offer an 
alternative to DSL.


-Matt

Jack Unger wrote:

Then the 5 GHz backhaul network must have antennas that are raised 
above the trees. Another option is to backhaul with city-owned fiber. 
Backhauling on 900 MHz is a possible third option. All it takes is rf 
knowledge, creativity, and cooperation.

 jack

Matt Liotta wrote:


Jack Unger wrote:

A multi-band mesh node does the backhaul on 5 GHz (sometimes with 
more than one 5 GHz radio). This reduces (but certainly doesn't 
eliminate) the 2.4 GHz self-interference and 
other-network-interference level.


You can't use 5 Ghz to go through trees here in Atlanta, so that 
won't help you. Multi-band mesh nodes simple don't work here.


-Matt







--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Our next WISP Workshops are April 12-13 and April 26-27
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread chris cooper
The SR9 cards might be interesting for this app...

chris

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 2:39 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

OK Matt, being a creative person, you can then suggest the use of DSL 
for the backhaul...
  jack

Matt Liotta wrote:

 How do you raise the antennas above the trees without building really 
 tall poles? Trees around here are 60-70ft.
 
 City-owned fiber only exists in places with enough density that there 
 aren't any trees to begin with. Residential areas generally have lots
of 
 trees and no reason for fiber runs.
 
 900Mhz won't get you much throughput; certainly not enough to offer an

 alternative to DSL.
 
 -Matt
 
 Jack Unger wrote:
 
 Then the 5 GHz backhaul network must have antennas that are raised 
 above the trees. Another option is to backhaul with city-owned fiber.

 Backhauling on 900 MHz is a possible third option. All it takes is rf

 knowledge, creativity, and cooperation.
  jack

 Matt Liotta wrote:

 Jack Unger wrote:

 A multi-band mesh node does the backhaul on 5 GHz (sometimes with 
 more than one 5 GHz radio). This reduces (but certainly doesn't 
 eliminate) the 2.4 GHz self-interference and 
 other-network-interference level.

 You can't use 5 Ghz to go through trees here in Atlanta, so that 
 won't help you. Multi-band mesh nodes simple don't work here.

 -Matt


 

-- 
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Our next WISP Workshops are April 12-13 and April 26-27
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



-- 
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Matt Liotta

Jack Unger wrote:

1. The attenuation between 2.4 GHz nodes is not enough to prevent each 
node from hearing multiple other nodes as noise (thus more packet 
retransmissions and more reduced throughtput). This requires 
understanding link budgets, signal-to-noise ratios, and receiver 
threshold specifications.


Luckily for us we happen to be a WISP that understands these issues. We 
have deployed several Tropos-based networks with sufficient attenuation 
between nodes.



2. Metricom is not a good comparison because:
a. They were frequency hoppers on 900 MHz.


Physics applies on all spectrum.

b. They promised low (128kbps and then 256kbps, if memory serves) 
throughput. This doesn't compare to today's expected throughput levels.


It was stated that the problems occurred for hams at 1200 baud.

c. They eventually went to a two-band node that backhauled on 2.4 GHz. 
so they could increase throughput.


Only in select areas; the vast majority of the network was single band.


d. Metricom then went out of business.


The network did work and it was profitable in a number of cities. The 
fact that there was a market bust or that company built more cities than 
they had cash flow to support isn't a technical concern.


Physics is still physics and companies need to but don't yet 
understand wireless physics. They need this understanding before 
bidding on muni projects and before they make these high-expectation, 
wireless-for-all, triple-play (voice, video, data) promises to public 
officials. Once a muni network is engineered incorrectly and deployed 
incorrectly, it may well take as much additional money to fix it (if 
it even can be fixed) as it took to deploy it in the first place.


Math is still math and companies need to but don't yet understand 
advanced mathematics. This generalization is just as accurate as your 
statement, but hopefully seems more absurd. Some companies understand 
wireless physics. Some of these same companies even deploy wireless 
networks that work. Some markets meet the correct criteria to have a 
muni Wi-Fi network that can be successful; some even exist today. How do 
any of these statements specify the success of muni Wi-Fi in general?


-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Dawn DiPietro

Jack,

Not a problem. This discussion needed the information and no one else 
posted it. I have been reading up on this network since
Ken went to the MuniWireless Show in Atlanta. Unfortunately some of the 
articles I read are no longer available.


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro

Jack Unger wrote:


Dawn,

Thanks for posting the St. Cloud PepLink and HP info.



---
---

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Matt Liotta
Similar is not the same. I couldn't find detailed specifications online. 
However, I do see that the unit has lower transmit power, it doesn't 
seem to be capable of being powered by AC, it doesn't seem capable of 
powering other devices such as a Canopy or Trango SM, and while there is 
a picture of some separate photo-cell power there is no specifications 
for that either. For example, many photo-cell taps are limited to 240v, 
but many street lights are 277v/480v.


-Matt

Jeffrey Thomas wrote:


Airmatrix offers very similar features for less than 1/3 the cost of tropos.

They also ofer Pole mounted power, and actually have a much lower power
consumption, in addition to having multiple configurations including dual
Radio diversity 2.4, dual radio diversity 2.4/5.8, etc.

-

Jeff



On 4/24/06 10:27 AM, Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 


A Tropos unit has a 1W transmitter, is capable of being powered via PoE
or via AC delivered through standard outlets as well as a variety of
photo-cell taps including high-voltage ones. When powered with AC, it is
capable of providing PoE power out of its Ethernet ports supporting
equipment from Motorola and Trango even though neither using standard
PoE. It mounts like a dream, includes level bubbles for perfect
orientation, and units can be slid into and out of place with only a
single screw enabling nodes to be changed in less than 5 minutes. Quite
simply, a Tropos unit is beautifully engineered.

Where can I find the parts to make the same thing in a single package?

-Matt

chris cooper wrote:

   


Why not just buy the cards, boards, antennas and make a few yourself?

c

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:46 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

Then there are companies like airmatrix that charge less than 1k per
node.
The key with mesh is density, and many mesh startup's fail because they
Underbuild their networks.

-

Jeff



On 4/24/06 7:53 AM, John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



 


I don't know what equipment they are using, but Cisco AP1500's (mesh)
  

   


are


 


abnout $3700 each and Cisco recommends 18-20 per square mile. Thats
  

   


$74,000


 


for the boxes plus antennas, mounts, POE and install.

John


  

   


-Original Message-
From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:26 AM
To: ''WISPA General List''
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

$173K per mile build out cost?  Somebody just bought a new boat..

c

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


 


On


 


Behalf Of George
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:08 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

George
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date:


 


4/14/2006


 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
  

   




 




 



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Jeffrey Thomas
Matt, hit me offlist and I will be glad to send you all that. We have used
AM for deployments on lightpoles and I know there are configurations
available to power more than a single unit.

-

Jeff



On 4/24/06 1:42 PM, Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Similar is not the same. I couldn't find detailed specifications online.
 However, I do see that the unit has lower transmit power, it doesn't
 seem to be capable of being powered by AC, it doesn't seem capable of
 powering other devices such as a Canopy or Trango SM, and while there is
 a picture of some separate photo-cell power there is no specifications
 for that either. For example, many photo-cell taps are limited to 240v,
 but many street lights are 277v/480v.
 
 -Matt
 
 Jeffrey Thomas wrote:
 
 Airmatrix offers very similar features for less than 1/3 the cost of tropos.
 
 They also ofer Pole mounted power, and actually have a much lower power
 consumption, in addition to having multiple configurations including dual
 Radio diversity 2.4, dual radio diversity 2.4/5.8, etc.
 
 -
 
 Jeff
 
 
 
 On 4/24/06 10:27 AM, Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  
 
 A Tropos unit has a 1W transmitter, is capable of being powered via PoE
 or via AC delivered through standard outlets as well as a variety of
 photo-cell taps including high-voltage ones. When powered with AC, it is
 capable of providing PoE power out of its Ethernet ports supporting
 equipment from Motorola and Trango even though neither using standard
 PoE. It mounts like a dream, includes level bubbles for perfect
 orientation, and units can be slid into and out of place with only a
 single screw enabling nodes to be changed in less than 5 minutes. Quite
 simply, a Tropos unit is beautifully engineered.
 
 Where can I find the parts to make the same thing in a single package?
 
 -Matt
 
 chris cooper wrote:
 

 
 Why not just buy the cards, boards, antennas and make a few yourself?
 
 c
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas
 Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:46 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
 
 Then there are companies like airmatrix that charge less than 1k per
 node.
 The key with mesh is density, and many mesh startup's fail because they
 Underbuild their networks.
 
 -
 
 Jeff
 
 
 
 On 4/24/06 7:53 AM, John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 
 
  
 
 I don't know what equipment they are using, but Cisco AP1500's (mesh)
   
 

 
 are
 
 
  
 
 abnout $3700 each and Cisco recommends 18-20 per square mile. Thats
   
 

 
 $74,000
 
 
  
 
 for the boxes plus antennas, mounts, POE and install.
 
 John
 
 
   
 

 
 -Original Message-
 From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:26 AM
 To: ''WISPA General List''
 Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
 
 $173K per mile build out cost?  Somebody just bought a new boat..
 
 c
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 
  
 
 On
 
 
  
 
 Behalf Of George
 Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:08 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
 
 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups
 
 I am not a fan of muni wireless.
 
 George
 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 
 
 --
 Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
 Checked by AVG Free Edition.
 Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date:
 
 
  
 
 4/14/2006
 
 
  
 
 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 
 
  
 
 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
   
 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Jack Unger

Matt Liotta wrote:


Jack Unger wrote:

1. The attenuation between 2.4 GHz nodes is not enough to prevent each 
node from hearing multiple other nodes as noise (thus more packet 
retransmissions and more reduced throughtput). This requires 
understanding link budgets, signal-to-noise ratios, and receiver 
threshold specifications.


Luckily for us we happen to be a WISP that understands these issues. We 
have deployed several Tropos-based networks with sufficient attenuation 
between nodes.


I'm glad you understand RF and that you have deployed several Tropos 
networks. I'm VERY interested in hearing about any big-city, 
wireless-for-all (shared residential-business-muni-public safety) 
voice-video-date deployments that do now (or that do in the future) 
successfully meet the original city-government and city-residents 
expectations.


Please share with us the following information about your most 
successful Tropos deployment:


1. The end-user throughput expectations
2. The end-user application expectations
3. The number of nodes
4. The backhaul architecture (point-to-multipoint or meshed)
5. The number of end-users
6. The geographical coverage
7. The obstructions in the environment
8. The interference environment
9. The design and installation costs for hardware and labor
10. The throughput-delivery performance over time
11. The support costs
12. Tips and suggestions for others who would like to deploy mesh networks.

Sharing your real-world data here will be of immense value to all WISPs.




2. Metricom is not a good comparison because:
a. They were frequency hoppers on 900 MHz.



Physics applies on all spectrum.


This statement glosses over the issue of different propagation 
characteristics at different frequencies and the issue of different 
modulation robustnesses. The same propagation characteristics don't 
apply to all spectrum nor does interference immunity apply the same to 
frequency hopping vs. direct-sequence spread spectrum. The narrower the 
channel (and FHSS uses narrow channels) the easier it is for a receiver 
to recover a signal in the face of interference. Comparing the narrow 
Metricom FHSS channels robustness to the current-day wideband DSSS 
channels is comparing apples to oranges even if both systems were 
operating in the same frequency band. Further, comparing the propagation 
characteristics of 900 MHz to 2.4 GHz is (again) like comparing apples 
to oranges. The longer wavelength of the 900 MHz signal undergoes less 
attenuation from obstructions when compared to the attenuation that a 
2.4 GHz signal experiences from those same obstructions.


b. They promised low (128kbps and then 256kbps, if memory serves) 
throughput. This doesn't compare to today's expected throughput levels.



It was stated that the problems occurred for hams at 1200 baud.


1200 baud, 128 kbps, or 11 Mbps - when same-frequency packet collisions 
occur, throughput is reduced however, the higher the data rate (speed), 
the more complex the modulation mode and the more easily the packet 
payload can be mangled by interference.



c. They eventually went to a two-band node that backhauled on 2.4 GHz. 
so they could increase throughput.



Only in select areas; the vast majority of the network was single band.


Right, and therefore their network was severely throughput limited over 
the vast majority of the network.





d. Metricom then went out of business.



The network did work and it was profitable in a number of cities. The 
fact that there was a market bust or that company built more cities than 
they had cash flow to support isn't a technical concern.


Their network was always slow, perhaps 128 kbps tops when only a single 
user was active. The network never served many customers and was 
therefore never heavily loaded. Metricom never had enough customers to 
become profitable. Being ahead of their time and building out in too 
many unprofitable cities were the non-technical reasons that they 
failed. Combining these reasons with the technical fact of the low 
network throughput capabilitiy limited the number of end users that they 
could serve thereby denying them the chance to be profitable. Their 
investors finally stopped giving them money and they had to close their 
doors.



Physics is still physics and companies need to but don't yet 
understand wireless physics. They need this understanding before 
bidding on muni projects and before they make these high-expectation, 
wireless-for-all, triple-play (voice, video, data) promises to public 
officials. Once a muni network is engineered incorrectly and deployed 
incorrectly, it may well take as much additional money to fix it (if 
it even can be fixed) as it took to deploy it in the first place.



Math is still math and companies need to but don't yet understand 
advanced mathematics. This generalization is just as accurate as your 
statement, but hopefully seems more absurd. Some companies understand 
wireless physics. Some of these 

Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

2006-04-24 Thread Tom DeReggi
Its amazing how many integrators forget the basic principle, that the RF 
reflection off the outside of a concrete or brick wall is at a higher signal 
strength than the signal that penetrates the wall and enters the home.  What 
good is signal into the home if you wipe out the transport down the street?


I thing the Muni Mesh needs a few real world failures fast to give everyone 
a reality check.  Its not that I'm wishing harm to others, its just that I 
do not see any way Muni Mesh its going to work out well technically for most 
big city Muni Mesh WiFi networks as designed.  By allowing the flaws to 
surface early will possibly save a lot of money for Munis and a lot of 
damage to reputation of the capabilty of the technology.  Right now there is 
a rat race to see who can do the successful case study first, copying off 
other Muni's plans that have not been proven successful yet. I look at it as 
the race to self destruction.


The muni nets that survive I believe are going to be the ones that are smart 
enough to diversify on their spectrum choice.  Robert Frost- I took the 
path less travelled and it made all the difference.. The biggest probelm is 
to may are going to try and jump on 5.8Ghz, the high power band. 
Unfortuneately both on t he front mile to attempt penetrate walls, and on 
the backend for backhaul. But what they are going to do instead is interfere 
and saturate/waste the most valuable band unecessarilly.  The secret to Muni 
Mesh Wifi success is going to be their abilty to acknowledge the new 
spectrum available to them such as the vast 255 Mhz of 5.4Ghz.  There is 
enough there for Last mile, transport, and backhaul, and likely not going to 
interfere with much of any one as it is fresh under used spectrum.  High 
Power is not needed for the small coverage areas typical of a city.


As Matt Liotta once pointed out in previous debates, the problem is not the 
principle MESH.  MESH is a valid technique to increase capacity and 
redundancy, if used properly for the right applications.  I believe the 
problem is the ignoring of the physics of RF propogation.  The other flaw 
that cities forget is that there are advantages of using multiple levels of 
height as well as density. Although Munis own the ride of ways, they rarely 
own the height of the city or preferred broadcast sites, and taht puts them 
at a disadvantage.


I believe that many small town muni networks will do well. But they often 
have different characteristics than the big city.  Buildings often have 
different arhetecture for one.  Fewers projects and interests to interfere, 
as another reason.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Brian Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 11:10 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes



Jack,
I hate to say it but didn't we say I told you so There is just not
enough spectrum to design networks like this to work with anything but
dedicated CPE devices with outdoor antennas. Simply flooding an area with
more signal to let laptops inside a house work will not solve the problem.
It just creates more noise on already maxed out spectrum. I really wish 
the

vendors and project stalwarts would admit this is a problem with these
networks and not gloss it over. Self interference and outside interference
are always going to be huge problems in these muni-networks. Everyone 
trying

to build on the fact that off the shelf consumer devices can access this
network will be the downfall. Wi-fi was never designed for a massive 
outdoor
deployment such as this and when you try to make up for the fact that you 
do

not have control over the CPE when it comes to proper RF planning you are
doomed to failure. Just my 2 cents.



Thank You,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com http://www.wirelessmapping.com


-Original Message-
From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:29 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes


Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni problems
that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be done correctly
and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to play a positive
role in proper network design and operation however most muni networks
are incorrectly designed by people with limited wireless experience
(yes, that even includes some mesh network vendors) which will lead to
network failure, waste of taxpayer money, and possible loss of jobs on
the part of the city IT folks (not to mention the elected officials) who
backed the networks without first learning about how wireless technology
really works.
  jack

George wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

George


--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com