Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
We do have dual radio mesh with 400mW and 100mW output power. You can find more information at http://www.defactowireless.com/Brochures/NewMesh.pdf I can have someone contact you offlist about the new products. David Peterson AirMatrix On 5/2/06 5:30 PM, "John Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We kind of got sucked into this. We have been working with Cisco as a > muni provider and were offered the Mesh training, which was good. A City > IT manager found out about the mesh and wanted it-before it was even > available-which wasn't so good. We could either install it and make some > money or walk away and not make money. Based on the data sheets, I had > high hopes, now that reality has set in, I am disappointed. I understand > why Ciscos pricing is higher-they bought Airespace and need to get their > investment back. That doesn't justify the fact the their gear is 3-4 x > what the competitors is. We are dealing with cities, and most of them > have a Catalyst 6500 in the back room. They tend to standardize on Cisco > and are willing to pay the price. > > Dos airmatrix have a dual radio mesh box? I just looked and the mesh > boxes seem to be single radio 2.4 only. > > John > > Jeffrey Thomas wrote: >> Yay branding. >> >> Actually my commpany is certified on cisco mesh. Which doesn't mean I would >> sell it or recommend it. I actually tell most customers to consider lower >> Cost options because there are so few real differentiators in mesh products. >> >> 1. Its far too overpriced ( retail of 4k per unit makes a 50 unit mesh a >> 240k project when compared to say, airmatrix which would run the operator >> Close to 50k. So is one product is 4x greater cost than the other, then >> There is something really screwy going on. >> >> >> -jb >> >> >> >> >> On 4/25/06 7:10 AM, "John J. Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>> Cities don't want home brew, they generally want something that says Cisco >>> on >>> the side. Every city that we ahve recently talked to either has a Cisco >>> Catalyst 6500 at teh core or has written a RFP to buy a switch that directly >>> indicates a Catalyst 6500. Note, I am talking about cities with populationd >>> of >>> 25,000 and larger, I can't speak for the smaller towns. >>> >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>>> -Original Message- >>>> From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:00 AM >>>> To: ''WISPA General List'' >>>> Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes >>>> >>>> Why not just buy the cards, boards, antennas and make a few yourself? >>>> >>>> c >>>> >>>> -Original Message- >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >>>> Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas >>>> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:46 PM >>>> To: WISPA General List >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes >>>> >>>> Then there are companies like airmatrix that charge less than 1k per >>>> node. >>>> The key with mesh is density, and many mesh startup's fail because they >>>> Underbuild their networks. >>>> >>>> - >>>> >>>> Jeff >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 4/24/06 7:53 AM, "John J. Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> I don't know what equipment they are using, but Cisco AP1500's (mesh) >>>>> >>>> are >>>> >>>>> abnout $3700 each and Cisco recommends 18-20 per square mile. Thats >>>>> >>>> $74,000 >>>> >>>>> for the boxes plus antennas, mounts, POE and install. >>>>> >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -Original Message- >>>>>> From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:26 AM >>>>>> To: ''WISPA General List'' >>>>>> Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes >>>>>> >>>>>> $173K per mile build out cost? Somebody just bought a new boat.. >>>>>> >&
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
We kind of got sucked into this. We have been working with Cisco as a
muni provider and were offered the Mesh training, which was good. A City
IT manager found out about the mesh and wanted it-before it was even
available-which wasn't so good. We could either install it and make some
money or walk away and not make money. Based on the data sheets, I had
high hopes, now that reality has set in, I am disappointed. I understand
why Ciscos pricing is higher-they bought Airespace and need to get their
investment back. That doesn't justify the fact the their gear is 3-4 x
what the competitors is. We are dealing with cities, and most of them
have a Catalyst 6500 in the back room. They tend to standardize on Cisco
and are willing to pay the price.
Dos airmatrix have a dual radio mesh box? I just looked and the mesh
boxes seem to be single radio 2.4 only.
John
Jeffrey Thomas wrote:
Yay branding.
Actually my commpany is certified on cisco mesh. Which doesn't mean I would
sell it or recommend it. I actually tell most customers to consider lower
Cost options because there are so few real differentiators in mesh products.
1. Its far too overpriced ( retail of 4k per unit makes a 50 unit mesh a
240k project when compared to say, airmatrix which would run the operator
Close to 50k. So is one product is 4x greater cost than the other, then
There is something really screwy going on.
-jb
On 4/25/06 7:10 AM, "John J. Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Cities don't want home brew, they generally want something that says Cisco on
the side. Every city that we ahve recently talked to either has a Cisco
Catalyst 6500 at teh core or has written a RFP to buy a switch that directly
indicates a Catalyst 6500. Note, I am talking about cities with populationd of
25,000 and larger, I can't speak for the smaller towns.
John
-Original Message-
From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:00 AM
To: ''WISPA General List''
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Why not just buy the cards, boards, antennas and make a few yourself?
c
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:46 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Then there are companies like airmatrix that charge less than 1k per
node.
The key with mesh is density, and many mesh startup's fail because they
Underbuild their networks.
-
Jeff
On 4/24/06 7:53 AM, "John J. Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't know what equipment they are using, but Cisco AP1500's (mesh)
are
abnout $3700 each and Cisco recommends 18-20 per square mile. Thats
$74,000
for the boxes plus antennas, mounts, POE and install.
John
-Original Message-
From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:26 AM
To: ''WISPA General List''
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
$173K per mile build out cost? Somebody just bought a new boat..
c
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Behalf Of George
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:08 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups
I am not a fan of muni wireless.
George
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date:
4/14/2006
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Take that "article/session" with a grain of salt -- as it is being run by an organization that is supported by vendors trying to *sell* the concept of muni-wifi -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter R. Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 8:03 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes Free Municipal Wi-Fi Service Boosts Economic Development in the City of St. Cloud, FL at http://www.digitalcityexpo.com/agenda.htm -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
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
pe 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 m
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Please send your money as we are backordered for development. Will send product as soon as we can fill the order. LOL. Quoting Brian Rohrbacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I'll take 200. > > Rudolph Worrell wrote: > > >I am reading all of these posts and I see one thing here. Marketing! There > is > >little sense to this but a great deal of marketing being done for Mesh, 4.9, > > >and Muni WiFi. I see out of town guys chime in all the time and express how > > >well they can deploy and integrate networks. I am very curious about the > >actual implementations they have done that involved a large mountain ranges > > >with customers spaced every 5 miles who are behind trees, or has some > >obstruction to any towers. Better yet a neighborhood with devices on the > same > >frequencies that you cannot control. My guess is that their lab and specs > of > >their devices looks great but the actual deployment is a different story. > We > >all know that 2.4Ghz, 900Mhz, and 5.8Ghz, all have their limitations, and > will > >perform perhaps 10% to 20% worst than advertised. Do these guys know that? > > > > >As for the marketing bit, I have a 2.4Ghz wireless device that can > communicate > >at 100 mph, at distances of 100mi from the tower using 60foot dishes, giving > a > >throughput of 200Mbps. It sells for $50,000.00 per Clieint bridge and > >$600,000.00 per AP. Who wants to buy? > > > > > >Quoting Carl A Jeptha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > >>Well to one-up you, > >>Our local Utility has been offered Wimax Radios to be used in a Mesh > >>Network on a licensed Freq, so that they can read meters. > >>What really gets me is that these people with a few carefully chosen > >>words appear to know more than all of us put together. The gift of the > GAB. > >> > >>You have a Good Day now, > >> > >> > >>Carl A Jeptha > >>http://www.airnet.ca > >>office 905 349-2084 > >>Emergency only Pager 905 377-6900 > >>skype cajeptha > >> > >> > >> > >>Brad Larson wrote: > >> > >> > >>>I'm biting my tongue on this topicI have been on enough of these > >>>projects, well over 50 in the last 12 months alone, and I have to say > >>> > >>> > >>there > >> > >> > >>>are a pile of people that don't know what they're getting into and many > >>> > >>> > >>will > >> > >> > >>>get hurt. For instance, I have a unnamed mesh vendor quoting 14 nodes per > >>>square mile for 100% coverage in a decent sized community in MA. They'll > >>>need at least 40ish... And please keep in mind that different parts of > the > >>>Country where tree lines/foliage, noise floors, and topology are > different > >>>create their own separate challenges. Throw in voice as some of the > >>>"wireless network experts" have advised and a whole new overlay of > >>> > >>> > >>problems > >> > >> > >>>surface. > >>> > >>>There is a place for mesh just like other tools in your kit but covering > >>>whole counties or even trying to cover a whole City is quite a stretch > >>> > >>> > >>IMHO. > >> > >> > >>>How did we get to this point of mesh first being considered a > "convenience > >>>or hotspot extension" to what it has become today where it is seen as the > >>>4th solution to the last mile or a cost effective roaming solution for > >>>public safety or city workers? > >>> > >>>I have seen designs in the NE US where 40 to 69 2.4 Ghz nodes per square > >>>mile are needed when a simple implement of 900 Mhz mobility with two base > >>>stations (redundant) per square mile can do the trick and save 90% of the > >>>cost of a mesh network. Use mesh in the parks, at the pool, in the > >>>restaurant district, or anywhere else people may want public access. And > >>>I'll add that opening up my notebook on a sunny day outside is pretty > much > >>> > >>> > >>a > >> > >> > >>>waste of battery power. I'm afraid Tempe AZ and St Cloud are just the > >>> > >>> > >>start > >> > >&g
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
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 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 l
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
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. &g
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
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 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
RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
I'm biting my tongue on this topicI have been on enough of these projects, well over 50 in the last 12 months alone, and I have to say there are a pile of people that don't know what they're getting into and many will get hurt. For instance, I have a unnamed mesh vendor quoting 14 nodes per square mile for 100% coverage in a decent sized community in MA. They'll need at least 40ish... And please keep in mind that different parts of the Country where tree lines/foliage, noise floors, and topology are different create their own separate challenges. Throw in voice as some of the "wireless network experts" have advised and a whole new overlay of problems surface. There is a place for mesh just like other tools in your kit but covering whole counties or even trying to cover a whole City is quite a stretch IMHO. How did we get to this point of mesh first being considered a "convenience or hotspot extension" to what it has become today where it is seen as the 4th solution to the last mile or a cost effective roaming solution for public safety or city workers? I have seen designs in the NE US where 40 to 69 2.4 Ghz nodes per square mile are needed when a simple implement of 900 Mhz mobility with two base stations (redundant) per square mile can do the trick and save 90% of the cost of a mesh network. Use mesh in the parks, at the pool, in the restaurant district, or anywhere else people may want public access. And I'll add that opening up my notebook on a sunny day outside is pretty much a waste of battery power. I'm afraid Tempe AZ and St Cloud are just the start of some of the bad press we're going to see related to our wireless industry. But then again, I'm a show me guy so if one of these major networks actually works, has an ROI and doesn't become a boondoggle for tax payers, and serves the public well then I'll be impressed. Brad -Original Message- From: John J. Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 10:03 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes >-Original Message- >From: George [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 09:02 AM >To: 'WISPA General List' >Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes > >John J. Thomas wrote: >> inline... > >> >> First off, the WISPs have to have the guts to talk to the city. Many simply refuse to do so, and are probably going to get the Muni WiFi shoved down their throats. >> > >I don't want to turn this into a battle of ideals. George, you are welcome to believe anything that you want. Here are some facts; 1. I work for Clare Computer Solutions and we are a Cisco Mesh certified network Integrator. 2. Cities have approached US to install their networks 3. These cities are not San Francisco sized, they are probably populations 100,000 and smaller. 4. They are spending the money to put in infrastructure for City workers, first. Many are looking at providing Internet access second. > >But how many local wisps have been chosen to date? >I bet Joe laura in NO got passed over without much consideration to him. >Joe is on this list, let him chime in here. > >> Second, the cities are mostly going to use 2.4 GHz for access and 5.7-5.8 GHz for backhauls. WISP's will need to use 5.25-5.25 GHz and 900 MHz. >> > >Almost every wisp today is using 2.4 to reach the customer and 5 gig for >infrastructure and high end customers. Are you saying that wisps have to >move off the existing spectrum and replace their equipment? I am not saying that WISPS have to move off of 2.4. I am saying that if WISPs want to provide top quality service, then they may need to move off of 2.4 as it is getting crowded in lots of areas. > >> >> In a word, service. The city will only be offering WiFi access-period. They won't be going out to peoples houses and doing installs, fixing virii, doing firewalls, etc. >> > >Here is a scenario, if a potential customer who is on the fence while >deciding to go to broadband was to hear that a new muni free wifi system >is going to come on line or he can buy now with his local wisp, which >choice is the average consumer going to make? Most are going to try the muni first. Some are going to be unsatisfied and will look for a better deal. I'll give you an example. I had 384k SDSL to my house and it was costing me $152 per month. In order to save money, I dropped the SDSL in favor of a cable modem. The cable modem can do 6 meg down and about 384k up for $43 per month and has been verified by DSLreports. Even my wife thinks the SDSL was better, I just couldn't afford it anymore. If someone in Antioch CA were even offering wireless service at $42 per month, I would be there. There is a subset of people tha
RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
HP has a Wireless Engineering Group acting as an integrator for Muni Projects. Alvarion has worked with them on several projects. Brad -Original Message- From: Carl A Jeptha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 7:32 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes What is really funny is that they used Hewlett Packard. Why not Cisco, Alvarion, Tranzeo. These are some of the people who are suppose to know what they are doing. BTW I am a certified HP Computer and printer tech. but still I think they know what they are doing. KICKBACK You have a Good Day now, Carl A Jeptha http://www.airnet.ca office 905 349-2084 Emergency only Pager 905 377-6900 skype cajeptha Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: > roflol > > The city is selling "signal boosters" (I read that as amps) to anyone > that wants them for $170? > > Oh man, this deployment is gonna come CRASHING down. Hard. > > It's really too bad these people are too ignorant, stubborn or just > plain stupid to call any of us in to help. > > sigh > > Marlon > (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales > (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services > 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! > 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) > www.odessaoffice.com/wireless > www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam > > > > - Original Message - From: "George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > 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
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 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
The real problem is that it won't be $400k. It'll be at least twice that. It always is. And, I didn't see anywhere that that included upstream connectivity? Here's where this stuff gets sticky. Out here we have a PUD that's put fiber to the home in. They told people that it cost roughly $3,000 per gateway box on the side of the house. But they really spent $15,000 once it was all installed!!! They flat out didn't tell the whole story to the tax payers OR the press. Deception through omission? I think so. I spend nearly 25% of their numbers to take care of a network with less than 1/10th the customer base! I don't, for a second, believe the $400,000 per year in expenses number. I guess time will tell 'eh? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: "Brian Whigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 8:34 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes Bob, It's $9.50 per month per user, after only 50 days of evangelizing. Not even the SBCs of the world are selling it for that. And as soon as grandma Jones and Bob down the street figure out what's going on, they'll sign up, too. So it will only be $4.16/mo. when they hit the 8,000 mark. Assume 2.77 persons per household (using Kissimmee census data) and you have 10,108 households plus a guestimate of 2000 businesses (based on Kissimees 3900 business count). And maybe they'll get 75% penetration (remember, the service is 'free'). Businesses would be dumb not to use it at least as a backup connection. Some mom and pop shops might be able to use it as the primary. Now, consider that you're no longer dealing with households, but individuals. I estimate about 65% are between ages 18 and 65. Let's play dumb and say that nobody under 18 or older than 65 could make use of it. That's 18,200 users. Plus, I think tourism is one of St. Clouds biggest industries. Add them in as potential users. Plus, it's a bonus to business travelers. If 75% of them subscribe, you have 15,000 accounts. That $4.16 drops to about $2. And, the access is mobile, albeit spotty at this point. So, you don't pay T-mobile for their hotspot, Sprint for EV-DO, and Bellsouth for DSL. The city is the 1st in the country to offer free wi-fi citywide. #1, 'forefront', 'technologically friendly', 'advanced': these are coveted adjectives. In what other way can a city be number one anymore? That's a qualification that's hard to buy for $2.4m, even if it's not a perfect system. Brian Whigham Yonder Networks 800-770-3421 706-534-1515 Census Data for Kissimmee: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12/1236950.html Bob Moldashel wrote: 3500 registered users using a network that costs $400K per year to maintain!!! That's $114 per subscriber! Why not just pay to give them DSL! LOL -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
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
ired. Person fails the class because of work could not be complete on schedule, 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" 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
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
Matt and other megahertz counters, No offense intended, just looking at it from their side. My post to Bob is the real math. No one wants to believe it might not work when looking at the $ figures. It's easier for them to count money than megabits and spectral bandwidth. I'm not a city government contract person, but in my dealings with the federal government, I've seen a lot more money be wasted for much less in return. Brian Whigham Yonder Networks 800-770-3421 706-534-1515 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. 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
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
Absolutely, and when we approach a city about doing a network, we are QUICK to point out that Tropos only has one radio. John >-Original Message- >From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:45 AM >To: 'WISPA General List' >Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes > >Matt, > >A multi-band mesh node does the backhaul on 5 GHz (sometimes with more >than one 5 GHz radio). This reduces (but certainly doesn't eliminate) >the 2.4 GHz self-interference and other-network-interference level. > >The reason the big muni projects often select Tropos is that Tropos has >the best marketing effort out there and has been "in the game" longer >than most other mesh equipment vendors. > >I predict it won't take too may big Tropos-based muni networks to fail >before future big-city muni administrators will "see the light" and >chose other, more throughput-capable mesh vendors. > >jack > > >Matt Liotta wrote: > >> In recent post I explained that here in Atlanta you can only use a >> single 2.4 channel because of the noise floor. How is a multi-band mesh >> node going to work? >> >> Maybe there is a reason the big muni projects keep selecting Tropos. >> >> -Matt >> >> Jack Unger wrote: >> >>> Dawn, >>> >>> Thanks for posting the St. Cloud PepLink and HP info. >>> >>> Using standard CPE (PePLink)is very good but using Tropos nodes is >>> very, very bad. Very bad because they only have one single 2.4 GHz >>> radio so after 2 or 3 hops, all the throughput capability is gone not >>> to mention that the interference level from having all the access and >>> backhaul packets colliding on 2.4 GHz (along with any WISP and other >>> 2.4 GHz network packets) will slow all the networks (muni and WISP) >>> down further. I hate to "finger" anyone but Tropos' stubborn refusal >>> or inability (anyone at Tropos listening???) to produce a 2-band mesh >>> node is going to doom them to failure along with any big city that >>> deploys their nodes without an extremely efficient point-to-multipoint >>> backbone design on 5 GHz. >>> >>> jack >>> >>> >>> Dawn DiPietro wrote: >>> >>>> http://www.peplink.com/060306.php >>>> >>>> Date: March 7, 2006* >>>> PePLink announces as the official Citywide Wireless CPE provider for >>>> City of St. Cloud in Florida * >>>> >>>> *Hong Kong, Mar 7, 2006 - *PePLink, a leader in citywide WiFi >>>> wireless broadband devices today announced the City of St. Cloud, FL, >>>> a suburb of Orlando, has chosen PePLink to be the official wireless >>>> CPE provider for the Cyber Spot, the City's 100% free citywide >>>> high-speed wireless Internet service. >>>> >>>> With a reliable, secure, ease of use wireless CPE - PePLink Surf, >>>> every citizen or business in the city of St. Cloud can connect to the >>>> citywide wireless network at a high speed. The CPE greatly enhances >>>> the throughput and reliability of both up and down link compared with >>>> a wireless-enabled computer desktop or notebook computer. >>>> >>>> The simple true plug and play nature of the PePLink Surf helps the >>>> citizens in St. Cloud to bring the wireless signal indoors with ease. >>>> At the same time, the PePLink Surf units can be remotely managed, >>>> monitored and provisioned by PePLink's carrier-grade management and >>>> reporting solution, PCMS (or PePLink Centralized Management System). >>>> This can ensure a scalable and rapid rollout of the wireless systems >>>> within a short period of time. This eliminates an onsite installation >>>> charge. >>>> >>>> "Being chosen by City of St. Cloud has further endorsed our >>>> capability to offer reliable wireless solutions to municipal wireless >>>> networks built with mesh network technology," said Alex Chan, >>>> Managing Director of PePLink. "PePLink Surf together with PCMS is the >>>> complete solution specifically designed for today's citywide wireless >>>> networks." >>>> >>>> PePLink Surf series consists of Surf 200BG and Surf 400BG. For more >>>> information on PePLink Surf series, please visit >>>> http://www.peplink.com <http://www
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Cities don't want home brew, they generally want something that says Cisco on the side. Every city that we ahve recently talked to either has a Cisco Catalyst 6500 at teh core or has written a RFP to buy a switch that directly indicates a Catalyst 6500. Note, I am talking about cities with populationd of 25,000 and larger, I can't speak for the smaller towns. John >-Original Message- >From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:00 AM >To: ''WISPA General List'' >Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes > >Why not just buy the cards, boards, antennas and make a few yourself? > >c > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas >Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:46 PM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes > >Then there are companies like airmatrix that charge less than 1k per >node. >The key with mesh is density, and many mesh startup's fail because they >Underbuild their networks. > >- > >Jeff > > > >On 4/24/06 7:53 AM, "John J. Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I don't know what equipment they are using, but Cisco AP1500's (mesh) >are >> abnout $3700 each and Cisco recommends 18-20 per square mile. Thats >$74,000 >> for the boxes plus antennas, mounts, POE and install. >> >> John >> >> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:26 AM >>> To: ''WISPA General List'' >>> Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes >>> >>> $173K per mile build out cost? Somebody just bought a new boat.. >>> >>> c >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >On >>> Behalf Of George >>> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:08 AM >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes >>> >>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups >>> >>> I am not a fan of muni wireless. >>> >>> George >>> -- >>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>> >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. >>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: >4/14/2006 >>> >>> >>> -- >>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>> >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>> >> >> >> -- >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > >-- >WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > >-- >Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006 > >-- >WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
>-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
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
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
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" 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
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
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" 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
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
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
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
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" 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
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" 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. Georg
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Well, I bet I could retire in a year or two selling something like these units. http://www.peplink.com/productsLoader.php?productName=surf_x I could custom design my own and charge for them. Offer a install price if the client needs it. Then they could use the Citys bandwidth for free. H Superior Wireless New Orleans,La. www.superior1.com - Original Message - From: "Dawn DiPietro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 11:12 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes > 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" > > 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
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 the
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Matt, hit me offlist and I will be glad to send you all that. We have used AM for deployments on lightpoles and I know there are configurations available to power more than a single unit. - Jeff On 4/24/06 1:42 PM, "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Similar is not the same. I couldn't find detailed specifications online. > However, I do see that the unit has lower transmit power, it doesn't > seem to be capable of being powered by AC, it doesn't seem capable of > powering other devices such as a Canopy or Trango SM, and while there is > a picture of some separate photo-cell power there is no specifications > for that either. For example, many photo-cell taps are limited to 240v, > but many street lights are 277v/480v. > > -Matt > > Jeffrey Thomas wrote: > >> Airmatrix offers very similar features for less than 1/3 the cost of tropos. >> >> They also ofer Pole mounted power, and actually have a much lower power >> consumption, in addition to having multiple configurations including dual >> Radio diversity 2.4, dual radio diversity 2.4/5.8, etc. >> >> - >> >> Jeff >> >> >> >> On 4/24/06 10:27 AM, "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >>> A Tropos unit has a 1W transmitter, is capable of being powered via PoE >>> or via AC delivered through standard outlets as well as a variety of >>> photo-cell taps including high-voltage ones. When powered with AC, it is >>> capable of providing PoE power out of its Ethernet ports supporting >>> equipment from Motorola and Trango even though neither using standard >>> PoE. It mounts like a dream, includes level bubbles for perfect >>> orientation, and units can be slid into and out of place with only a >>> single screw enabling nodes to be changed in less than 5 minutes. Quite >>> simply, a Tropos unit is beautifully engineered. >>> >>> Where can I find the parts to make the same thing in a single package? >>> >>> -Matt >>> >>> chris cooper wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Why not just buy the cards, boards, antennas and make a few yourself? >>>> >>>> c >>>> >>>> -Original Message- >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >>>> Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas >>>> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:46 PM >>>> To: WISPA General List >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes >>>> >>>> Then there are companies like airmatrix that charge less than 1k per >>>> node. >>>> The key with mesh is density, and many mesh startup's fail because they >>>> Underbuild their networks. >>>> >>>> - >>>> >>>> Jeff >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 4/24/06 7:53 AM, "John J. Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I don't know what equipment they are using, but Cisco AP1500's (mesh) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> are >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> abnout $3700 each and Cisco recommends 18-20 per square mile. Thats >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> $74,000 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> for the boxes plus antennas, mounts, POE and install. >>>>> >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -Original Message- >>>>>> From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:26 AM >>>>>> To: ''WISPA General List'' >>>>>> Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes >>>>>> >>>>>> $173K per mile build out cost? Somebody just bought a new boat.. >>>>>> >>>>>> c >>>>>> >>>>>> -Original Message- >>>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Similar is not the same. I couldn't find detailed specifications online. However, I do see that the unit has lower transmit power, it doesn't seem to be capable of being powered by AC, it doesn't seem capable of powering other devices such as a Canopy or Trango SM, and while there is a picture of some separate photo-cell power there is no specifications for that either. For example, many photo-cell taps are limited to 240v, but many street lights are 277v/480v. -Matt Jeffrey Thomas wrote: Airmatrix offers very similar features for less than 1/3 the cost of tropos. They also ofer Pole mounted power, and actually have a much lower power consumption, in addition to having multiple configurations including dual Radio diversity 2.4, dual radio diversity 2.4/5.8, etc. - Jeff On 4/24/06 10:27 AM, "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: A Tropos unit has a 1W transmitter, is capable of being powered via PoE or via AC delivered through standard outlets as well as a variety of photo-cell taps including high-voltage ones. When powered with AC, it is capable of providing PoE power out of its Ethernet ports supporting equipment from Motorola and Trango even though neither using standard PoE. It mounts like a dream, includes level bubbles for perfect orientation, and units can be slid into and out of place with only a single screw enabling nodes to be changed in less than 5 minutes. Quite simply, a Tropos unit is beautifully engineered. Where can I find the parts to make the same thing in a single package? -Matt chris cooper wrote: Why not just buy the cards, boards, antennas and make a few yourself? c -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:46 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes Then there are companies like airmatrix that charge less than 1k per node. The key with mesh is density, and many mesh startup's fail because they Underbuild their networks. - Jeff On 4/24/06 7:53 AM, "John J. Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't know what equipment they are using, but Cisco AP1500's (mesh) are abnout $3700 each and Cisco recommends 18-20 per square mile. Thats $74,000 for the boxes plus antennas, mounts, POE and install. John -Original Message- From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:26 AM To: ''WISPA General List'' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes $173K per mile build out cost? Somebody just bought a new boat.. c -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Then the 5 GHz backhaul network must have antennas that are raised above the trees. Another option is to backhaul with city-owned fiber. Backhauling on 900 MHz is a possible third option. All it takes is rf knowledge, creativity, and cooperation. jack Matt Liotta wrote: Jack Unger wrote: A multi-band mesh node does the backhaul on 5 GHz (sometimes with more than one 5 GHz radio). This reduces (but certainly doesn't eliminate) the 2.4 GHz self-interference and other-network-interference level. You can't use 5 Ghz to go through trees here in Atlanta, so that won't help you. Multi-band mesh nodes simple don't work here. -Matt -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Our next WISP Workshops are April 12-13 and April 26-27 Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Matt, I make that assumption based on the node density that some of these networks are being designed for to accommodate the little or no gain available on the antenna systems of the user unit laptops and PDA's. The people who are trumping up these networks are trying to lull the people with money in to thinking they can build a seamless network. To do this they spec the systems for high node density to keep the signal level up down on the ground for the users. When they locate them on light poles on the same streets they certainly will have many situations where other nodes will have a lot of strong signal visible to them from neighboring nodes. When you look at a coverage footprint for a node when you have to assume the specs from a laptop unit you clearly see that it does not cover much area, IT mentality says, just put more nodes up then. Tropos nodes do have attenuation between them but with each node using an antenna with gain they don't have the attenuation "between nodes" that the network was designed for. Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com <http://www.wirelessmapping.com> -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 1:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes You make the assumption that the Tropos nodes have little to no attenuation between them, which is a poor assumption. A useful exercise is to drive around and make a list of Metrocom nodes. You'll find that a very small percentage have LOS or even near-LOS to each other. Metrocom certainly was able to provide ubiquitous coverage long before the muni Wi-Fi was all the rage. Where was your physics then? -Matt Brian Webster wrote: >HP likes to design these Tropos networks by never having more than 2 hops >before it gets put on some sort of backhaul. This in theory works well but >in reality, you still run out of 2.4 GHz channels to place the access nodes >on. Remember each radio/mesh unit is at the same height as every other one >thus firing their signal directly in to the antenna of all neighboring >nodes. The users may not see the noise but node to node traffic certainly >hears it. When the mesh radio is deaf because of noise, the network just >plain fails to work. End of story. Mesh will simply not work on a loaded >residential user based system without a lot more spectrum. People are trying >to fight the laws of physics. Ask any ham radio guy about this. When they >originally built packet radio networks back in the early 90's, they found >you needed separate channels to make it work (and that was only 1200 baud). >San Francisco, Philly and any other muni network are going to fail based on >this problem. The idea and premise of a muni network is solid based on the >points Matt Larsen brought up but as Jack and others have stated, they have >been sold on all of the positive benefits but never get told the >limitations. The typical IT mentality is that they can throw more money at >the problem to increase capacity. This is simply not true based on the >limited number of useable channels. Sad thing is there will be a lot of >taxpayer money wasted to prove this point. > > > >Thank You, >Brian Webster >www.wirelessmapping.com <http://www.wirelessmapping.com> > > >-Original Message----- >From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 1:22 PM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes > > >Dawn, > >Thanks for posting the St. Cloud PepLink and HP info. > >Using standard CPE (PePLink)is very good but using Tropos nodes is very, >very bad. Very bad because they only have one single 2.4 GHz radio so >after 2 or 3 hops, all the throughput capability is gone not to mention >that the interference level from having all the access and backhaul >packets colliding on 2.4 GHz (along with any WISP and other 2.4 GHz >network packets) will slow all the networks (muni and WISP) down >further. I hate to "finger" anyone but Tropos' stubborn refusal or >inability (anyone at Tropos listening???) to produce a 2-band mesh node >is going to doom them to failure along with any big city that deploys >their nodes without an extremely efficient point-to-multipoint backbone >design on 5 GHz. > >jack > > >Dawn DiPietro wrote: > > > >>http://www.peplink.com/060306.php >> >>Date: March 7, 2006* >>PePLink announces as the official Citywide Wireless CPE provider for >>City of St. Cloud in Florida * >> >>*Hong Kong, Mar 7, 2006 - *PePLink, a leader in citywide WiFi wireless >>broadband devices today announced the City of St. Cloud, FL, a suburb of >>Orlando, has chosen PePLink
RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Joe, I agree with you there and for many people that would be just fine, but the average consumer is going to expect these wi-fi muni networks to perform like DSL and Cable broadband does. The municipalities are expecting the same thing. You and I know they will never be able to achieve this. Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com <http://www.wirelessmapping.com> -Original Message- From: Joe Laura [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 2:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes So to sum it up IMO physics and limited spectrum makes a muni system impossible to get the coverage they expect. Dont get me wrong, ups just dropped off a mag mount friday to me that I am installing on the van tomorrow. Even if I have to drive 3 blocks or so to connect and pull mail or peek at my intermapper will be a plus. Joe - Original Message - From: "Brian Webster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" 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 plu
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
You make the assumption that the Tropos nodes have little to no attenuation between them, which is a poor assumption. A useful exercise is to drive around and make a list of Metrocom nodes. You'll find that a very small percentage have LOS or even near-LOS to each other. Metrocom certainly was able to provide ubiquitous coverage long before the muni Wi-Fi was all the rage. Where was your physics then? -Matt Brian Webster wrote: HP likes to design these Tropos networks by never having more than 2 hops before it gets put on some sort of backhaul. This in theory works well but in reality, you still run out of 2.4 GHz channels to place the access nodes on. Remember each radio/mesh unit is at the same height as every other one thus firing their signal directly in to the antenna of all neighboring nodes. The users may not see the noise but node to node traffic certainly hears it. When the mesh radio is deaf because of noise, the network just plain fails to work. End of story. Mesh will simply not work on a loaded residential user based system without a lot more spectrum. People are trying to fight the laws of physics. Ask any ham radio guy about this. When they originally built packet radio networks back in the early 90's, they found you needed separate channels to make it work (and that was only 1200 baud). San Francisco, Philly and any other muni network are going to fail based on this problem. The idea and premise of a muni network is solid based on the points Matt Larsen brought up but as Jack and others have stated, they have been sold on all of the positive benefits but never get told the limitations. The typical IT mentality is that they can throw more money at the problem to increase capacity. This is simply not true based on the limited number of useable channels. Sad thing is there will be a lot of taxpayer money wasted to prove this point. Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com <http://www.wirelessmapping.com> -Original Message- From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 1:22 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes Dawn, Thanks for posting the St. Cloud PepLink and HP info. Using standard CPE (PePLink)is very good but using Tropos nodes is very, very bad. Very bad because they only have one single 2.4 GHz radio so after 2 or 3 hops, all the throughput capability is gone not to mention that the interference level from having all the access and backhaul packets colliding on 2.4 GHz (along with any WISP and other 2.4 GHz network packets) will slow all the networks (muni and WISP) down further. I hate to "finger" anyone but Tropos' stubborn refusal or inability (anyone at Tropos listening???) to produce a 2-band mesh node is going to doom them to failure along with any big city that deploys their nodes without an extremely efficient point-to-multipoint backbone design on 5 GHz. jack Dawn DiPietro wrote: http://www.peplink.com/060306.php Date: March 7, 2006* PePLink announces as the official Citywide Wireless CPE provider for City of St. Cloud in Florida * *Hong Kong, Mar 7, 2006 - *PePLink, a leader in citywide WiFi wireless broadband devices today announced the City of St. Cloud, FL, a suburb of Orlando, has chosen PePLink to be the official wireless CPE provider for the Cyber Spot, the City's 100% free citywide high-speed wireless Internet service. With a reliable, secure, ease of use wireless CPE - PePLink Surf, every citizen or business in the city of St. Cloud can connect to the citywide wireless network at a high speed. The CPE greatly enhances the throughput and reliability of both up and down link compared with a wireless-enabled computer desktop or notebook computer. The simple true plug and play nature of the PePLink Surf helps the citizens in St. Cloud to bring the wireless signal indoors with ease. At the same time, the PePLink Surf units can be remotely managed, monitored and provisioned by PePLink's carrier-grade management and reporting solution, PCMS (or PePLink Centralized Management System). This can ensure a scalable and rapid rollout of the wireless systems within a short period of time. This eliminates an onsite installation charge. "Being chosen by City of St. Cloud has further endorsed our capability to offer reliable wireless solutions to municipal wireless networks built with mesh network technology," said Alex Chan, Managing Director of PePLink. "PePLink Surf together with PCMS is the complete solution specifically designed for today's citywide wireless networks." PePLink Surf series consists of Surf 200BG and Surf 400BG. For more information on PePLink Surf series, please visit http://www.peplink.com <http://www.peplink.com/>. Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: roflol The city is selling "signal boosters" (I read that as amps) to anyone that wants them f
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
So to sum it up IMO physics and limited spectrum makes a muni system impossible to get the coverage they expect. Dont get me wrong, ups just dropped off a mag mount friday to me that I am installing on the van tomorrow. Even if I have to drive 3 blocks or so to connect and pull mail or peek at my intermapper will be a plus. Joe - Original Message - From: "Brian Webster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" 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
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Jack Unger wrote: A multi-band mesh node does the backhaul on 5 GHz (sometimes with more than one 5 GHz radio). This reduces (but certainly doesn't eliminate) the 2.4 GHz self-interference and other-network-interference level. You can't use 5 Ghz to go through trees here in Atlanta, so that won't help you. Multi-band mesh nodes simple don't work here. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
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" 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
RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
HP likes to design these Tropos networks by never having more than 2 hops before it gets put on some sort of backhaul. This in theory works well but in reality, you still run out of 2.4 GHz channels to place the access nodes on. Remember each radio/mesh unit is at the same height as every other one thus firing their signal directly in to the antenna of all neighboring nodes. The users may not see the noise but node to node traffic certainly hears it. When the mesh radio is deaf because of noise, the network just plain fails to work. End of story. Mesh will simply not work on a loaded residential user based system without a lot more spectrum. People are trying to fight the laws of physics. Ask any ham radio guy about this. When they originally built packet radio networks back in the early 90's, they found you needed separate channels to make it work (and that was only 1200 baud). San Francisco, Philly and any other muni network are going to fail based on this problem. The idea and premise of a muni network is solid based on the points Matt Larsen brought up but as Jack and others have stated, they have been sold on all of the positive benefits but never get told the limitations. The typical IT mentality is that they can throw more money at the problem to increase capacity. This is simply not true based on the limited number of useable channels. Sad thing is there will be a lot of taxpayer money wasted to prove this point. Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com <http://www.wirelessmapping.com> -Original Message- From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 1:22 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes Dawn, Thanks for posting the St. Cloud PepLink and HP info. Using standard CPE (PePLink)is very good but using Tropos nodes is very, very bad. Very bad because they only have one single 2.4 GHz radio so after 2 or 3 hops, all the throughput capability is gone not to mention that the interference level from having all the access and backhaul packets colliding on 2.4 GHz (along with any WISP and other 2.4 GHz network packets) will slow all the networks (muni and WISP) down further. I hate to "finger" anyone but Tropos' stubborn refusal or inability (anyone at Tropos listening???) to produce a 2-band mesh node is going to doom them to failure along with any big city that deploys their nodes without an extremely efficient point-to-multipoint backbone design on 5 GHz. jack Dawn DiPietro wrote: > http://www.peplink.com/060306.php > > Date: March 7, 2006* > PePLink announces as the official Citywide Wireless CPE provider for > City of St. Cloud in Florida * > > *Hong Kong, Mar 7, 2006 - *PePLink, a leader in citywide WiFi wireless > broadband devices today announced the City of St. Cloud, FL, a suburb of > Orlando, has chosen PePLink to be the official wireless CPE provider for > the Cyber Spot, the City's 100% free citywide high-speed wireless > Internet service. > > With a reliable, secure, ease of use wireless CPE - PePLink Surf, every > citizen or business in the city of St. Cloud can connect to the citywide > wireless network at a high speed. The CPE greatly enhances the > throughput and reliability of both up and down link compared with a > wireless-enabled computer desktop or notebook computer. > > The simple true plug and play nature of the PePLink Surf helps the > citizens in St. Cloud to bring the wireless signal indoors with ease. At > the same time, the PePLink Surf units can be remotely managed, monitored > and provisioned by PePLink's carrier-grade management and reporting > solution, PCMS (or PePLink Centralized Management System). This can > ensure a scalable and rapid rollout of the wireless systems within a > short period of time. This eliminates an onsite installation charge. > > "Being chosen by City of St. Cloud has further endorsed our capability > to offer reliable wireless solutions to municipal wireless networks > built with mesh network technology," said Alex Chan, Managing Director > of PePLink. "PePLink Surf together with PCMS is the complete solution > specifically designed for today's citywide wireless networks." > > PePLink Surf series consists of Surf 200BG and Surf 400BG. For more > information on PePLink Surf series, please visit http://www.peplink.com > <http://www.peplink.com/>. > > > > > Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: > >> roflol >> >> The city is selling "signal boosters" (I read that as amps) to anyone >> that wants them for $170? >> >> Oh man, this deployment is gonna come CRASHING down. Hard. >> >> It's really too bad these people are too ignorant, stubborn or just >> plain stupid to call any of us in to he
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Matt, Tropos has done a very good job when it comes to powering their node from a wide variety of sources. Unfortunately their "fatal flaw" is to insistence on clinging to their "single-radio" design. This means their nodes will always be throughput-limited, latency-limited, self-interference limited, and 2.4 GHz spectrum polluters. Any power and rf-savvy WISP could design an equally power-versatile mesh node but make it multi-band. jack Matt Liotta wrote: A Tropos unit has a 1W transmitter, is capable of being powered via PoE or via AC delivered through standard outlets as well as a variety of photo-cell taps including high-voltage ones. When powered with AC, it is capable of providing PoE power out of its Ethernet ports supporting equipment from Motorola and Trango even though neither using standard PoE. It mounts like a dream, includes level bubbles for perfect orientation, and units can be slid into and out of place with only a single screw enabling nodes to be changed in less than 5 minutes. Quite simply, a Tropos unit is beautifully engineered. Where can I find the parts to make the same thing in a single package? -Matt chris cooper wrote: Why not just buy the cards, boards, antennas and make a few yourself? c -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:46 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes Then there are companies like airmatrix that charge less than 1k per node. The key with mesh is density, and many mesh startup's fail because they Underbuild their networks. - Jeff On 4/24/06 7:53 AM, "John J. Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't know what equipment they are using, but Cisco AP1500's (mesh) are abnout $3700 each and Cisco recommends 18-20 per square mile. Thats $74,000 for the boxes plus antennas, mounts, POE and install. John -Original Message- From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:26 AM To: ''WISPA General List'' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes $173K per mile build out cost? Somebody just bought a new boat.. c -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Our next WISP Workshops are April 12-13 and April 26-27 Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
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 proac
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
In recent post I explained that here in Atlanta you can only use a single 2.4 channel because of the noise floor. How is a multi-band mesh node going to work? Maybe there is a reason the big muni projects keep selecting Tropos. -Matt Jack Unger wrote: Dawn, Thanks for posting the St. Cloud PepLink and HP info. Using standard CPE (PePLink)is very good but using Tropos nodes is very, very bad. Very bad because they only have one single 2.4 GHz radio so after 2 or 3 hops, all the throughput capability is gone not to mention that the interference level from having all the access and backhaul packets colliding on 2.4 GHz (along with any WISP and other 2.4 GHz network packets) will slow all the networks (muni and WISP) down further. I hate to "finger" anyone but Tropos' stubborn refusal or inability (anyone at Tropos listening???) to produce a 2-band mesh node is going to doom them to failure along with any big city that deploys their nodes without an extremely efficient point-to-multipoint backbone design on 5 GHz. jack Dawn DiPietro wrote: http://www.peplink.com/060306.php Date: March 7, 2006* PePLink announces as the official Citywide Wireless CPE provider for City of St. Cloud in Florida * *Hong Kong, Mar 7, 2006 - *PePLink, a leader in citywide WiFi wireless broadband devices today announced the City of St. Cloud, FL, a suburb of Orlando, has chosen PePLink to be the official wireless CPE provider for the Cyber Spot, the City's 100% free citywide high-speed wireless Internet service. With a reliable, secure, ease of use wireless CPE - PePLink Surf, every citizen or business in the city of St. Cloud can connect to the citywide wireless network at a high speed. The CPE greatly enhances the throughput and reliability of both up and down link compared with a wireless-enabled computer desktop or notebook computer. The simple true plug and play nature of the PePLink Surf helps the citizens in St. Cloud to bring the wireless signal indoors with ease. At the same time, the PePLink Surf units can be remotely managed, monitored and provisioned by PePLink's carrier-grade management and reporting solution, PCMS (or PePLink Centralized Management System). This can ensure a scalable and rapid rollout of the wireless systems within a short period of time. This eliminates an onsite installation charge. "Being chosen by City of St. Cloud has further endorsed our capability to offer reliable wireless solutions to municipal wireless networks built with mesh network technology," said Alex Chan, Managing Director of PePLink. "PePLink Surf together with PCMS is the complete solution specifically designed for today's citywide wireless networks." PePLink Surf series consists of Surf 200BG and Surf 400BG. For more information on PePLink Surf series, please visit http://www.peplink.com <http://www.peplink.com/>. Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: roflol The city is selling "signal boosters" (I read that as amps) to anyone that wants them for $170? Oh man, this deployment is gonna come CRASHING down. Hard. It's really too bad these people are too ignorant, stubborn or just plain stupid to call any of us in to help. sigh Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: "George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" 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
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
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" 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
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
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
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
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 muniwireless efforts. The munis are our most powerful allies right now, and we should be working WITH them, not against them. Matt Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 Wi
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
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" 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
George wrote: 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? 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. We tested Tropos units here, which are high powered and have good receive sensitivity, but we still need each node to be spaced anywhere from 0.125 to 0.25 miles apart to provide decent indoor penetration. With a higher powered CPE we can separate the nodes further apart, but in the end it still requires too many nodes. I say too many because of the bandwidth loss experienced by using single radio mesh nodes. At least here, you can't use multi-radio nodes because the only Wi-Fi channel that doesn't have an impossible noise floor is channel 1 and there are too many trees to use something other than 2.4 for intra-mesh distribution. -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
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" Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:40 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes I am doubting that wisps can actually accomadate the muni in most situations, unless they are closely involved with the design of the network, Talking spectrum use here. As for going along with free muni wifi, How is a wisp going to operate if a muni is offering for free or at cut rate pricing? And how are they going to expand if the spectrum is used up all over the place with unlicensed omni's on every corner. George Jack Unger wrote: Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni problems that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be done correctly and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to play a positive role in proper network design and operation however most muni networks are incorrectly designed by people with limited wireless experience (yes, that even includes some mesh network vendors) which will lead to network failure, waste of taxpayer money, and possible loss of jobs on the part of the city IT folks (not to mention the elected officials) who backed the networks without first learning about how wireless technology really works. jack George wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
No, they are selling higher powered CPE devices that act as a bridge connecting to the muni network and then act as a local AP to help lower powered laptops effectively use the service. -Matt Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: roflol The city is selling "signal boosters" (I read that as amps) to anyone that wants them for $170? Oh man, this deployment is gonna come CRASHING down. Hard. It's really too bad these people are too ignorant, stubborn or just plain stupid to call any of us in to help. sigh Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: "George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" 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
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" 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
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
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" 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
Joe, More power to you for trying to help them see the truth of the situation, early-on. Is their current (single radio per node, I think) mesh meeting their service and throughput expectations? Is there any constructive way for you to go back to the City "fathers" and help them improve the throughput of their mesh (such as building a point-to-multipoint backhaul on 5.3 GHz, for example)? Will their mesh ultimately be shut down by the (telco-supported) Louisiana law against muni networks? jack Joe Laura wrote: 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" 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/ -- 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
John, Great points! Let me add a couple of thoughts: Just selling connectivity in most areas is a closing opportunity (until the Tele-Barons decide to tier their network anyway). Govt is short sighted (until the next election). But a demo along with a viable alternative solution can help you get in the door. (It wouldn't hurt to get a godfather or a major player on your side either). Regards, Peter RAD-INFO, Inc. --- John J. Thomas wrote: 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. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
inline... >-Original Message- >From: George [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:40 AM >To: 'WISPA General List' >Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes > >I am doubting that wisps can actually accomadate the muni in most >situations, unless they are closely involved with the design of the >network, Talking spectrum use here. First off, the WISPs have to have the guts to talk to the city. Many simply refuse to do so, and are probably going to get the Muni WiFi shoved down their throats. Second, the cities are mostly going to use 2.4 GHz for access and 5.7-5.8 GHz for backhauls. WISP's will need to use 5.25-5.25 GHz and 900 MHz. > >As for going along with free muni wifi, How is a wisp going to operate >if a muni is offering for free or at cut rate pricing? In a word, service. The city will only be offering WiFi access-period. They won't be going out to peoples houses and doing installs, fixing virii, doing firewalls, etc. >And how are they going to expand if the spectrum is used up all over the >place with unlicensed omni's on every corner. > >George > >Jack Unger wrote: >> Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni problems >> that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be done correctly >> and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to play a positive >> role in proper network design and operation however most muni networks >> are incorrectly designed by people with limited wireless experience >> (yes, that even includes some mesh network vendors) which will lead to >> network failure, waste of taxpayer money, and possible loss of jobs on >> the part of the city IT folks (not to mention the elected officials) who >> backed the networks without first learning about how wireless technology >> really works. >> jack >> >> George wrote: >> >>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups >>> >>> I am not a fan of muni wireless. >>> >>> George >> >> > >-- >WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
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" 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
Brian, Excellent point about "not enough spectrum" - I agree 100%. Outdoor antennas are required when a "fixed" computer is more than a few hundred feet away from an access point. When a city or a mesh vendor pretends otherwise, they are wrong. Unfortunately, wireless is such a "hot" field now that the mesh equipment vendors and the big Earthlink and Googles of the world just see the profits without understanding the technology limitations and without understanding the failure modes and the spectrum (and business) devastation that their new blanket-the-city-with-wireless plan will bring. Excellent point also about munis not having control over (standardization of) the customer CPE. Imagine the WISP support burden if a WISP had 1000 customers and each customer had unique, self-selected, indoor CPE. Supporting a network like that and providing a consistent level of service would drive anyone crazy (and out of business) in short order. Again, to survive, WISPs must 1) Learn RF 2) Be positive and proactive 3) Get involved early in the muni education process 4) Be creative thinkers to craft win-win muni scenarios. Thanks, Brian, for you excellent comments. jack Brian Webster wrote: 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/ -- 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
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
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??? AT&T wins and we all know that is not a fair, just, or beneficial outcome for anybody but AT&T. 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
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
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
I am doubting that wisps can actually accomadate the muni in most situations, unless they are closely involved with the design of the network, Talking spectrum use here. As for going along with free muni wifi, How is a wisp going to operate if a muni is offering for free or at cut rate pricing? And how are they going to expand if the spectrum is used up all over the place with unlicensed omni's on every corner. George Jack Unger wrote: Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni problems that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be done correctly and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to play a positive role in proper network design and operation however most muni networks are incorrectly designed by people with limited wireless experience (yes, that even includes some mesh network vendors) which will lead to network failure, waste of taxpayer money, and possible loss of jobs on the part of the city IT folks (not to mention the elected officials) who backed the networks without first learning about how wireless technology really works. jack George wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups I am not a fan of muni wireless. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
I'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
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
$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] 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/
