Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-08 Thread Blake Bowers

Grin... It includes the combo to the building so you
can pull them and put them in your truck!

What a deal!


- Original Message - 
From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 9:42 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband



Blake Bowers wrote:

And now I can't sell those DS3 Digital microwave
radios from the MCI system for anything more than
10 cents a pound.


Does that price include shipping? :D

David Smith
MVN.net
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-07 Thread Matt Liotta
 needs one direction or another. Doesn't 
it really mean that the customer needs more total bandwidth? Is it 
any more important that mail was sent and not received?  Full 
Duplex is one way for a customer to solve that problem, and reserve 
bandwdith in one direction. But does that really solve the problem? 
Maybe if the circuit's intended use is for 100% VOIP a symetrical 
application.  But not many circuits are used for that purpose.  And 
if I really wanted to, I can set my bandwdith management to be 
seperate for upload and download, and immulate a Full Duplex 
connection, over the half duplex link. But what it really says to 
me is the importance that customers have front end queuing / IP 
prioritization when using bi-directional sensitive applications 
such as VOIP.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband



Hi,

If someone wants to setup whatever wireless network they would 
like to test and then let me know, I'll gladly send you a CD you 
can pop in a laptop and connect at the CPE side. It will dish out 
4,000pps and 1.5Mbps of upload traffic. Then you can go ahead and 
try and download something at the same time across that same link 
using the same CPE connection.


If it were a telco-T1, the download would not even notice the 
upload. Wireless, being a half-duplex medium, does not compare to 
a full-duplex line. Licensed and true microwave systems are a 
different story.


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Travis,

We do not see that on our network.
One provider's usage rarely has an effect on the others, that can 
be significantly noticed.
When bandwidth management is done at the first hop at every cell 
site, this does not happen.

I'm referring to using Trango 5830s.

You are however bringing up the difference between time 
syncronized circuit based apposed to Ethernet products.
With Ethernet, there is always a scale up and scale down of 
speed, based on the TCP protocol when limits are reached, but 
this has nothing to do with half or full duplex. The same 
degregation using Ethernet applies to traffic going in the same 
direction.
For Ethernet to be a viable repalcement for T1, it must be of 
greater capacity.


The second thing, distinguishing the difference between T1 and 
DSL classe, and which Wireless compares to, is more than just 
Speed and Duplex.


SLAs,  Repair Time, Network support, Peak Speed, etc.

the idea is that unused bandwdith can never be gone back to 
regain use of. So offering 3 mbps speed allows network usage to 
be delivered sooner, so bandwidth is free for upcomming traffic, 
therefore making more traffic available for that upcomming need. 
Higher capacity allows more efficient use of the bandwdith.  So 
we find that our customers tend to recognize a perception of much 
better speed on our wireless links than our T1 links, because 
they have fewer congestion times.


The secret is for the bandwdith management to be provided equally 
on a PRIORITY basis.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband



Matt,

This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps 
upload, it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic, 
music sharing, worms, etc.). With a wireless connection, even at 
3.0Mbps, a 1.5Mbps upload will bring it almost to a stop.


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is 
equivalent to 1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD 
radios can have dynamic time division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex 
link superior IMHO.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:


Tom,

Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 
telco service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless?


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Chris,

I agree with your finding.
But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. 
(Or what was the finding?)
For example, its not only important to determine what terms 
the customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what 
meaning they have for those terms that they identify with.


For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed 
Internet was the term that the consumer best identified with.
However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much 
with DialUP service as they do with Broadband.
And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with 
DSL or Cable services.  Why do we want to create the image of 
offering commodity services, design for huge over 
subscription, low repair SLAs, and best effort?


Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far 
as setting

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-07 Thread Travis Johnson
 broadband, 
why would the data in one direction be any more priority than the 
other, when capacity is reached? Either way the customer is 
compromised in throughout needs one direction or another. Doesn't 
it really mean that the customer needs more total bandwidth? Is it 
any more important that mail was sent and not received?  Full 
Duplex is one way for a customer to solve that problem, and 
reserve bandwdith in one direction. But does that really solve the 
problem? Maybe if the circuit's intended use is for 100% VOIP a 
symetrical application.  But not many circuits are used for that 
purpose.  And if I really wanted to, I can set my bandwdith 
management to be seperate for upload and download, and immulate a 
Full Duplex connection, over the half duplex link. But what it 
really says to me is the importance that customers have front end 
queuing / IP prioritization when using bi-directional sensitive 
applications such as VOIP.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband



Hi,

If someone wants to setup whatever wireless network they would 
like to test and then let me know, I'll gladly send you a CD you 
can pop in a laptop and connect at the CPE side. It will dish out 
4,000pps and 1.5Mbps of upload traffic. Then you can go ahead and 
try and download something at the same time across that same link 
using the same CPE connection.


If it were a telco-T1, the download would not even notice the 
upload. Wireless, being a half-duplex medium, does not compare to 
a full-duplex line. Licensed and true microwave systems are a 
different story.


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Travis,

We do not see that on our network.
One provider's usage rarely has an effect on the others, that 
can be significantly noticed.
When bandwidth management is done at the first hop at every cell 
site, this does not happen.

I'm referring to using Trango 5830s.

You are however bringing up the difference between time 
syncronized circuit based apposed to Ethernet products.
With Ethernet, there is always a scale up and scale down of 
speed, based on the TCP protocol when limits are reached, but 
this has nothing to do with half or full duplex. The same 
degregation using Ethernet applies to traffic going in the same 
direction.
For Ethernet to be a viable repalcement for T1, it must be of 
greater capacity.


The second thing, distinguishing the difference between T1 and 
DSL classe, and which Wireless compares to, is more than just 
Speed and Duplex.


SLAs,  Repair Time, Network support, Peak Speed, etc.

the idea is that unused bandwdith can never be gone back to 
regain use of. So offering 3 mbps speed allows network usage to 
be delivered sooner, so bandwidth is free for upcomming traffic, 
therefore making more traffic available for that upcomming need. 
Higher capacity allows more efficient use of the bandwdith.  So 
we find that our customers tend to recognize a perception of 
much better speed on our wireless links than our T1 links, 
because they have fewer congestion times.


The secret is for the bandwdith management to be provided 
equally on a PRIORITY basis.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband



Matt,

This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps 
upload, it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic, 
music sharing, worms, etc.). With a wireless connection, even 
at 3.0Mbps, a 1.5Mbps upload will bring it almost to a stop.


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is 
equivalent to 1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD 
radios can have dynamic time division makes a 3Mbps 
half-duplex link superior IMHO.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:


Tom,

Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 
telco service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless?


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Chris,

I agree with your finding.
But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. 
(Or what was the finding?)
For example, its not only important to determine what terms 
the customer best recognizes and identify with, but also 
what meaning they have for those terms that they identify with.


For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed 
Internet was the term that the consumer best identified with.
However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much 
with DialUP service as they do with Broadband.
And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with 
DSL or Cable services.  Why do we want to create the image 
of offering commodity

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-07 Thread Matt Liotta
 never met a company where having one 
direction traffic only was acceptable or tolerable.


You did however hit on an important clarification. A half duplex 
link can not distinguish on its own wether upload or download 
traffic at a given moment is priority or more important to the 
subscriber. When there is a large demand for legitimate 
broadband, why would the data in one direction be any more 
priority than the other, when capacity is reached? Either way the 
customer is compromised in throughout needs one direction or 
another. Doesn't it really mean that the customer needs more 
total bandwidth? Is it any more important that mail was sent and 
not received?  Full Duplex is one way for a customer to solve 
that problem, and reserve bandwdith in one direction. But does 
that really solve the problem? Maybe if the circuit's intended 
use is for 100% VOIP a symetrical application.  But not many 
circuits are used for that purpose.  And if I really wanted to, I 
can set my bandwdith management to be seperate for upload and 
download, and immulate a Full Duplex connection, over the half 
duplex link. But what it really says to me is the importance that 
customers have front end queuing / IP prioritization when using 
bi-directional sensitive applications such as VOIP.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband



Hi,

If someone wants to setup whatever wireless network they would 
like to test and then let me know, I'll gladly send you a CD you 
can pop in a laptop and connect at the CPE side. It will dish 
out 4,000pps and 1.5Mbps of upload traffic. Then you can go 
ahead and try and download something at the same time across 
that same link using the same CPE connection.


If it were a telco-T1, the download would not even notice the 
upload. Wireless, being a half-duplex medium, does not compare 
to a full-duplex line. Licensed and true microwave systems are a 
different story.


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Travis,

We do not see that on our network.
One provider's usage rarely has an effect on the others, that 
can be significantly noticed.
When bandwidth management is done at the first hop at every 
cell site, this does not happen.

I'm referring to using Trango 5830s.

You are however bringing up the difference between time 
syncronized circuit based apposed to Ethernet products.
With Ethernet, there is always a scale up and scale down of 
speed, based on the TCP protocol when limits are reached, but 
this has nothing to do with half or full duplex. The same 
degregation using Ethernet applies to traffic going in the same 
direction.
For Ethernet to be a viable repalcement for T1, it must be of 
greater capacity.


The second thing, distinguishing the difference between T1 and 
DSL classe, and which Wireless compares to, is more than just 
Speed and Duplex.


SLAs,  Repair Time, Network support, Peak Speed, etc.

the idea is that unused bandwdith can never be gone back to 
regain use of. So offering 3 mbps speed allows network usage to 
be delivered sooner, so bandwidth is free for upcomming 
traffic, therefore making more traffic available for that 
upcomming need. Higher capacity allows more efficient use of 
the bandwdith.  So we find that our customers tend to recognize 
a perception of much better speed on our wireless links than 
our T1 links, because they have fewer congestion times.


The secret is for the bandwdith management to be provided 
equally on a PRIORITY basis.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband



Matt,

This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps 
upload, it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic, 
music sharing, worms, etc.). With a wireless connection, even 
at 3.0Mbps, a 1.5Mbps upload will bring it almost to a stop.


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is 
equivalent to 1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD 
radios can have dynamic time division makes a 3Mbps 
half-duplex link superior IMHO.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:


Tom,

Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 
telco service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless?


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Chris,

I agree with your finding.
But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. 
(Or what was the finding?)
For example, its not only important to determine what terms 
the customer best recognizes and identify with, but also 
what meaning they have for those terms that they identify 
with.


For example, it does

engineering links (was Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband)

2006-04-07 Thread Matt Liotta
I know we keep working on our processes to improve the installation of 
our links. We still have a burn-in period after installations because 
our processes aren't yet 100%. I think it would be great if we could 
together work up a documented procedure to ensure better wireline 
reliability of wireless links.


-Matt

John Scrivner wrote:

Well engineered links with proper installation, lightning protection, 
battery backup and good gear will be just as reliable (if not more) as 
any land line system in my opinion. The rub is that many wireless 
links are poorly engineered, bad gear and not installed well. Garbage 
in...garbage out. I am just as guilty as anyone else. I am fixing that 
though. I have wireless links that are getting to be as reliable as 
wired ones. I will be better than wired reliably here in a year. The 
cost factor puts wireless well ahead of any risk/reward or value 
comparisons to other broadband platforms. Wireless will be the clear 
winner in the end if we all learn to do it right and buy good gear.

Scriv



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: engineering links (was Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband)

2006-04-07 Thread Jack Unger

Hey Matt,

Please excuse the following shameless self-promotion however, it's my 
mission to try to be helpful therefore I respectfully offer the 
following:


I think you'll find my book helpful:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1587050692/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-8486677-9648632#reader-link

or my workshops:

http://www.ask-wi.com/2002workshops.html

or my telephone consulting or on-site consulting.

You're always welcome to phone or email me and if I can answer your 
questions in 15 or 20 (or even 23) minutes, there's no charge.


I'm sure you can also pick up some excellent ideas (and pick some very 
knowledgable brains) by attending a few carefully selected workshops at 
quality broadband shows like WISPNOG.


With a good grasp of how to calculate a link budget, how to interpret 
those sometimes incomplete vendor specifications, and how to avoid the 
common installation-process pitfalls, you'll be able to write up a 
design and installation procedure that should work pretty well for your 
company, going forward.

jack



Matt Liotta wrote:

I know we keep working on our processes to improve the installation of 
our links. We still have a burn-in period after installations because 
our processes aren't yet 100%. I think it would be great if we could 
together work up a documented procedure to ensure better wireline 
reliability of wireless links.


-Matt

John Scrivner wrote:

Well engineered links with proper installation, lightning protection, 
battery backup and good gear will be just as reliable (if not more) as 
any land line system in my opinion. The rub is that many wireless 
links are poorly engineered, bad gear and not installed well. Garbage 
in...garbage out. I am just as guilty as anyone else. I am fixing that 
though. I have wireless links that are getting to be as reliable as 
wired ones. I will be better than wired reliably here in a year. The 
cost factor puts wireless well ahead of any risk/reward or value 
comparisons to other broadband platforms. Wireless will be the clear 
winner in the end if we all learn to do it right and buy good gear.

Scriv





--
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] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-07 Thread Tom DeReggi

Travis does bring up an important issue regarding uptime.

It has been proven that Wireless can be a reliable technology, the flaw is 
not the RF.
Expecially PtP links engineered between two points on an ISPs network, 
controlled by an ISP.
The problem however come in on the other side of the link. Can we control 
the factors on the customer side, that can effect reliabilty? And is it cost 
effective to do so?


Some examples:
1. A landscaper cut the CAT5 cable on the side of the house.
2. Poor electrical causes frequent radio lockup or Linksys's to loose 
configs.
3. A cleaning crew, unplugs routers in MTU building electrical closet, so 
they can plug in their vacume.
4. A customer gets a Virus, and sends traffic patterns that manages to force 
lockups on AP regularly.
5. A roofer desides to setup a temp work center in front of our rooftop SU 
dish antenna. Packet loss every 3 minutes, when goes to grab another bunch 
of shingles or what ever.


Many of these problems are less prone to happen with T1 lines, but it has 
nothing to do with technology, it has to do with deployment trends and 
characteristics.  As a result, in some cases, short outages could occur more 
frequently. Thats why its so important that WISPs continue to push the many 
other valuable positives of Wireless that the technology uniquely gives, 
making it all worth it.



Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 9:13 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband



Matt,

Now you are comparing $150,000 point to point licensed microwave links 
with $150 CPE point to multi-point links?


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

We haven't been in business for 3 years, but yes we have wireless links 
that have 100% uptime. How many years did this entire country depend on 
wireless links for long distance prior to fiber optics? The M in MCI 
isn't microwave for no reason.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:


Hi,

I have point to point T1 lines from Qwest that have been up 100% for the 
last 3 years. That's 100.0% uptime. Do you have any wireless links that 
have that type of reliability?


I am probably one of the largest WISP operators on this and any wireless 
list. I built our entire wireless backbone from the ground up starting 
in 1997. I spent 3 hours on a tower this morning installing two new 
AP's. I understand where wireless fits and where it doesn't.


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

I'll take a wireless link over a T1 any day if for no other reason then 
the wireless link will be more reliable. You're never going to suffer 
the loss of a link due to a backhoe or a drunk driver hitting a pole, 
which are the two most likely reasons for a T1 failure.


Personally, I believe that fixed wireless is truly better and I would 
argue someone has no business working for a fixed wireless company if 
they don't believe it too.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:


Tom,

The original postition and question was are you comparing your 
wireless service to telco T1. After your posts, it's obvious that you 
are... and I would argue that a land-based line will ALWAYS be better 
than wireless, with all other factors being the same. Now, if you are 
able to save the customer $xx per month by using wireless, then there 
is an advantage. If you can provide other services, then there is an 
advantage. However, comparing a half-duplex system to a full-duplex 
system and saying they are the same is... not correct.


If you had the choice between running a full-duplex wireless system 
and half-duplex, which would you do? :)


If you could purchase a land-based connection to go from point A to 
point B for $500 per month, or rent roof-top space at point A and 
point B for $500 per month, which would you choose? ;)


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Travis,

I'd love to perform your test.
Send me the CD.
Understanding that I will provision the customer at 3 mbps on our 
first hop router, using Trango 10mbps PtMP radio link, and that your 
CD test will generate 1500mbps of data transfer.


There are three seperate issues here. 1) One user's connection able 
to effect another user's connection, and 2) On one particular link, 
their upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under normal 
opperation within acceptable use policy, and 3) On one particular 
link, their upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under a 
Denial of Service situation.


With any type of broadband, if the capacity of a link is saturated, 
it results in packet loss and performance loss for the individual's 
connection. Its up to the end user to protect against violation of 
acceptable use policy like viruses that deliver abnormal PPS, or any 
queueing needed to allow fair priority of data type on the LAN side 
of the link. These problems can also all be solved with a feature 
rich client side

RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-07 Thread danlist
All good points and I also think that in a urban/city environment were you have
more visible rooftops that redundancy from another PoP is the key and using a
routing protocol to fail over if the main link goes down


Dan Metcalf
Wireless Broadband Systems
www.wbisp.com
781-566-2053 ext 6201
1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
support: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
 Of Tom DeReggi
 Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 1:47 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
 
 Travis does bring up an important issue regarding uptime.
 
 It has been proven that Wireless can be a reliable technology, the flaw is
 not the RF.
 Expecially PtP links engineered between two points on an ISPs network,
 controlled by an ISP.
 The problem however come in on the other side of the link. Can we control
 the factors on the customer side, that can effect reliabilty? And is it cost
 effective to do so?
 
 Some examples:
 1. A landscaper cut the CAT5 cable on the side of the house.
 2. Poor electrical causes frequent radio lockup or Linksys's to loose
 configs.
 3. A cleaning crew, unplugs routers in MTU building electrical closet, so
 they can plug in their vacume.
 4. A customer gets a Virus, and sends traffic patterns that manages to force
 lockups on AP regularly.
 5. A roofer desides to setup a temp work center in front of our rooftop SU
 dish antenna. Packet loss every 3 minutes, when goes to grab another bunch
 of shingles or what ever.
 
 Many of these problems are less prone to happen with T1 lines, but it has
 nothing to do with technology, it has to do with deployment trends and
 characteristics.  As a result, in some cases, short outages could occur more
 frequently. Thats why its so important that WISPs continue to push the many
 other valuable positives of Wireless that the technology uniquely gives,
 making it all worth it.
 
 
 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
 
 
 - Original Message -
 From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 9:13 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
 
 
  Matt,
 
  Now you are comparing $150,000 point to point licensed microwave links
  with $150 CPE point to multi-point links?
 
  Travis
  Microserv
 
  Matt Liotta wrote:
 
  We haven't been in business for 3 years, but yes we have wireless links
  that have 100% uptime. How many years did this entire country depend on
  wireless links for long distance prior to fiber optics? The M in MCI
  isn't microwave for no reason.
 
  -Matt
 
  Travis Johnson wrote:
 
  Hi,
 
  I have point to point T1 lines from Qwest that have been up 100% for the
  last 3 years. That's 100.0% uptime. Do you have any wireless links that
  have that type of reliability?
 
  I am probably one of the largest WISP operators on this and any wireless
  list. I built our entire wireless backbone from the ground up starting
  in 1997. I spent 3 hours on a tower this morning installing two new
  AP's. I understand where wireless fits and where it doesn't.
 
  Travis
  Microserv
 
  Matt Liotta wrote:
 
  I'll take a wireless link over a T1 any day if for no other reason then
  the wireless link will be more reliable. You're never going to suffer
  the loss of a link due to a backhoe or a drunk driver hitting a pole,
  which are the two most likely reasons for a T1 failure.
 
  Personally, I believe that fixed wireless is truly better and I would
  argue someone has no business working for a fixed wireless company if
  they don't believe it too.
 
  -Matt
 
  Travis Johnson wrote:
 
  Tom,
 
  The original postition and question was are you comparing your
  wireless service to telco T1. After your posts, it's obvious that you
  are... and I would argue that a land-based line will ALWAYS be better
  than wireless, with all other factors being the same. Now, if you are
  able to save the customer $xx per month by using wireless, then there
  is an advantage. If you can provide other services, then there is an
  advantage. However, comparing a half-duplex system to a full-duplex
  system and saying they are the same is... not correct.
 
  If you had the choice between running a full-duplex wireless system
  and half-duplex, which would you do? :)
 
  If you could purchase a land-based connection to go from point A to
  point B for $500 per month, or rent roof-top space at point A and
  point B for $500 per month, which would you choose? ;)
 
  Travis
  Microserv
 
  Tom DeReggi wrote:
 
  Travis,
 
  I'd love to perform your test.
  Send me the CD.
  Understanding that I will provision the customer at 3 mbps on our
  first hop router, using Trango 10mbps PtMP radio link, and that your
  CD test will generate 1500mbps of data transfer.
 
  There are three seperate issues here. 1) One user's connection able
  to effect another user's

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-07 Thread Travis Johnson
 no CPU 
time is available for it. Unless each direction has its own CPU, 
which is not likely.  This is an issue of whether the radio used 
can handle the number of PPS sent to it in high DOS situations.


I'd also argue under this situation 4000 pps 1500 mbps, that the 
customer's use of the circuit in any capacity when a DOS of that 
type was happening, would be not possible, and justify immediate 
tech action to resolve, regardless of whether one direction of 
traffic was usable.  I;ve never met a company where having one 
direction traffic only was acceptable or tolerable.


You did however hit on an important clarification. A half duplex 
link can not distinguish on its own wether upload or download 
traffic at a given moment is priority or more important to the 
subscriber. When there is a large demand for legitimate 
broadband, why would the data in one direction be any more 
priority than the other, when capacity is reached? Either way 
the customer is compromised in throughout needs one direction or 
another. Doesn't it really mean that the customer needs more 
total bandwidth? Is it any more important that mail was sent and 
not received?  Full Duplex is one way for a customer to solve 
that problem, and reserve bandwdith in one direction. But does 
that really solve the problem? Maybe if the circuit's intended 
use is for 100% VOIP a symetrical application.  But not many 
circuits are used for that purpose.  And if I really wanted to, 
I can set my bandwdith management to be seperate for upload and 
download, and immulate a Full Duplex connection, over the half 
duplex link. But what it really says to me is the importance 
that customers have front end queuing / IP prioritization when 
using bi-directional sensitive applications such as VOIP.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband



Hi,

If someone wants to setup whatever wireless network they would 
like to test and then let me know, I'll gladly send you a CD 
you can pop in a laptop and connect at the CPE side. It will 
dish out 4,000pps and 1.5Mbps of upload traffic. Then you can 
go ahead and try and download something at the same time across 
that same link using the same CPE connection.


If it were a telco-T1, the download would not even notice the 
upload. Wireless, being a half-duplex medium, does not compare 
to a full-duplex line. Licensed and true microwave systems are 
a different story.


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Travis,

We do not see that on our network.
One provider's usage rarely has an effect on the others, that 
can be significantly noticed.
When bandwidth management is done at the first hop at every 
cell site, this does not happen.

I'm referring to using Trango 5830s.

You are however bringing up the difference between time 
syncronized circuit based apposed to Ethernet products.
With Ethernet, there is always a scale up and scale down of 
speed, based on the TCP protocol when limits are reached, but 
this has nothing to do with half or full duplex. The same 
degregation using Ethernet applies to traffic going in the 
same direction.
For Ethernet to be a viable repalcement for T1, it must be of 
greater capacity.


The second thing, distinguishing the difference between T1 and 
DSL classe, and which Wireless compares to, is more than just 
Speed and Duplex.


SLAs,  Repair Time, Network support, Peak Speed, etc.

the idea is that unused bandwdith can never be gone back to 
regain use of. So offering 3 mbps speed allows network usage 
to be delivered sooner, so bandwidth is free for upcomming 
traffic, therefore making more traffic available for that 
upcomming need. Higher capacity allows more efficient use of 
the bandwdith.  So we find that our customers tend to 
recognize a perception of much better speed on our wireless 
links than our T1 links, because they have fewer congestion 
times.


The secret is for the bandwdith management to be provided 
equally on a PRIORITY basis.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband



Matt,

This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 
1.5Mbps upload, it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus 
traffic, music sharing, worms, etc.). With a wireless 
connection, even at 3.0Mbps, a 1.5Mbps upload will bring it 
almost to a stop.


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is 
equivalent to 1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD 
radios can have dynamic time division makes a 3Mbps 
half-duplex link superior IMHO.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:


Tom

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-07 Thread Matt Liotta

Travis Johnson wrote:

20 years ago before the fiber and MCI was using links, they cost 
more than $150k. Even our local cell phone provider has point to point 
links that are over $100k today.


That's nice, but they don't have to cost that much. I know one of the 
local metro counties here is using 7Ghz licensed for trunking their 911 
operations and each link cost under $50k. I am not privy to the uptime 
of these links, but I am guessing that they must be pretty reliable if 
they are used for 911 by a government entity.


I've been doing this for almost 10 years I have THOUSANDS of 
wireless customers. How many customers do you have? The total number 
of failures is relative to the number of CPE.


I don't really see how we can compare our businesses as we don't really 
do much multipoint. A customer that just buys a T1 replacement for a 
single location is the exception in our business. Most of our customers 
are buying a lot more bandwidth and/or have many locations. For example, 
one of our CLEC customers just placed an order for 14 new 3Mbps links. 
You think a CLEC is going to use us for last mile if we can't provide 
them with a 99.99%/50ms SLA?


And if you are using CPE that is more than $150, maybe you should be 
looking at Trango. :)


We evaluated Trango and even used them in a the field for a while. We 
don't use Trango anymore.


-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] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-07 Thread danlist
Matt,

What hardware are you using?

Dan Metcalf
Wireless Broadband Systems
www.wbisp.com
781-566-2053 ext 6201
1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
support: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
 Of Matt Liotta
 Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 2:40 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
 
 Travis Johnson wrote:
 
  20 years ago before the fiber and MCI was using links, they cost
  more than $150k. Even our local cell phone provider has point to point
  links that are over $100k today.
 
 That's nice, but they don't have to cost that much. I know one of the
 local metro counties here is using 7Ghz licensed for trunking their 911
 operations and each link cost under $50k. I am not privy to the uptime
 of these links, but I am guessing that they must be pretty reliable if
 they are used for 911 by a government entity.
 
  I've been doing this for almost 10 years I have THOUSANDS of
  wireless customers. How many customers do you have? The total number
  of failures is relative to the number of CPE.
 
 I don't really see how we can compare our businesses as we don't really
 do much multipoint. A customer that just buys a T1 replacement for a
 single location is the exception in our business. Most of our customers
 are buying a lot more bandwidth and/or have many locations. For example,
 one of our CLEC customers just placed an order for 14 new 3Mbps links.
 You think a CLEC is going to use us for last mile if we can't provide
 them with a 99.99%/50ms SLA?
 
  And if you are using CPE that is more than $150, maybe you should be
  looking at Trango. :)
 
 We evaluated Trango and even used them in a the field for a while. We
 don't use Trango anymore.
 
 -Matt
 
 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 
 --
 No virus found in this incoming message.
 Checked by AVG Free Edition.
 Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/303 - Release Date: 04/06/2006
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/303 - Release Date: 04/06/2006
 

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-07 Thread Matt Liotta

Using for what? Motorola and Orthogon for our radio links.

-Matt

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Matt,

What hardware are you using?

Dan Metcalf
Wireless Broadband Systems
www.wbisp.com
781-566-2053 ext 6201
1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
support: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


 


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 2:40 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

Travis Johnson wrote:

   


20 years ago before the fiber and MCI was using links, they cost
more than $150k. Even our local cell phone provider has point to point
links that are over $100k today.

 


That's nice, but they don't have to cost that much. I know one of the
local metro counties here is using 7Ghz licensed for trunking their 911
operations and each link cost under $50k. I am not privy to the uptime
of these links, but I am guessing that they must be pretty reliable if
they are used for 911 by a government entity.

   


I've been doing this for almost 10 years I have THOUSANDS of
wireless customers. How many customers do you have? The total number
of failures is relative to the number of CPE.

 


I don't really see how we can compare our businesses as we don't really
do much multipoint. A customer that just buys a T1 replacement for a
single location is the exception in our business. Most of our customers
are buying a lot more bandwidth and/or have many locations. For example,
one of our CLEC customers just placed an order for 14 new 3Mbps links.
You think a CLEC is going to use us for last mile if we can't provide
them with a 99.99%/50ms SLA?

   


And if you are using CPE that is more than $150, maybe you should be
looking at Trango. :)

 


We evaluated Trango and even used them in a the field for a while. We
don't use Trango anymore.

-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/303 - Release Date: 04/06/2006

   



 



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-07 Thread Blake Bowers

And now I can't sell those DS3 Digital microwave
radios from the MCI system for anything more than 
10 cents a pound.


Such a shame.

- Original Message - 
From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband



Matt,

20 years ago before the fiber and MCI was using links, they cost more 
than $150k. Even our local cell phone provider has point to point links 
that are over $100k today.



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-07 Thread Anthony Will
Im I wrong here because I believe a T1 line utilizes TDD (Time Division 
Duplexing)?  Thus it is a half duplex solution.  In reality it feels 
like a full duplex solution due to the timing. 


Anthony

Travis Johnson wrote:


Hi,

If someone wants to setup whatever wireless network they would like to 
test and then let me know, I'll gladly send you a CD you can pop in a 
laptop and connect at the CPE side. It will dish out 4,000pps and 
1.5Mbps of upload traffic. Then you can go ahead and try and download 
something at the same time across that same link using the same CPE 
connection.


If it were a telco-T1, the download would not even notice the upload. 
Wireless, being a half-duplex medium, does not compare to a 
full-duplex line. Licensed and true microwave systems are a different 
story.


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Travis,

We do not see that on our network.
One provider's usage rarely has an effect on the others, that can be 
significantly noticed.
When bandwidth management is done at the first hop at every cell 
site, this does not happen.

I'm referring to using Trango 5830s.

You are however bringing up the difference between time syncronized 
circuit based apposed to Ethernet products.
With Ethernet, there is always a scale up and scale down of speed, 
based on the TCP protocol when limits are reached, but this has 
nothing to do with half or full duplex. The same degregation using 
Ethernet applies to traffic going in the same direction.
For Ethernet to be a viable repalcement for T1, it must be of greater 
capacity.


The second thing, distinguishing the difference between T1 and DSL 
classe, and which Wireless compares to, is more than just Speed and 
Duplex.


SLAs,  Repair Time, Network support, Peak Speed, etc.

the idea is that unused bandwdith can never be gone back to regain 
use of. So offering 3 mbps speed allows network usage to be delivered 
sooner, so bandwidth is free for upcomming traffic, therefore making 
more traffic available for that upcomming need. Higher capacity 
allows more efficient use of the bandwdith.  So we find that our 
customers tend to recognize a perception of much better speed on our 
wireless links than our T1 links, because they have fewer congestion 
times.


The secret is for the bandwdith management to be provided equally on 
a PRIORITY basis.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband



Matt,

This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps 
upload, it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic, music 
sharing, worms, etc.). With a wireless connection, even at 3.0Mbps, 
a 1.5Mbps upload will bring it almost to a stop.


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is equivalent 
to 1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD radios can have 
dynamic time division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex link superior IMHO.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:


Tom,

Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco 
service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless?


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Chris,

I agree with your finding.
But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or 
what was the finding?)
For example, its not only important to determine what terms the 
customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning 
they have for those terms that they identify with.


For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed 
Internet was the term that the consumer best identified with.
However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much with 
DialUP service as they do with Broadband.
And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL 
or Cable services.  Why do we want to create the image of 
offering commodity services, design for huge over subscription, 
low repair SLAs, and best effort?


Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as 
setting standards for quality?


We don't want to be identified as that.  We want to be something 
better.


Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi services 
to your clients, and you are striving to be a competitor to Cable 
and DSL quality, sure Brand the product as DSL, and its a good 
thing.  And please do so, so your wireless is not identified with 
what we offer, branding high quality fiber extension and T1 
replacement services.


In your focus group did you get any results on their perception 
of quality that they associated with Cable and DSL or the term 
High Speed Internet?


Would you suggest branding your T1 or Fiber offerings as High 
Speed Internet, since customers best identify with that term?


Maybe we should be branding our service as Wi-Fiber. or Maybe 
Ethernet Internet Access  (of course like end

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-07 Thread David E. Smith
Blake Bowers wrote:
 And now I can't sell those DS3 Digital microwave
 radios from the MCI system for anything more than
 10 cents a pound.

Does that price include shipping? :D

David Smith
MVN.net
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-07 Thread Anthony Will

hhhmmm  should have started that with I MAYBE am wrong here

Anthony Will wrote:

Im I wrong here because I believe a T1 line utilizes TDD (Time 
Division Duplexing)?  Thus it is a half duplex solution.  In reality 
it feels like a full duplex solution due to the timing.

Anthony

Travis Johnson wrote:


Hi,

If someone wants to setup whatever wireless network they would like 
to test and then let me know, I'll gladly send you a CD you can pop 
in a laptop and connect at the CPE side. It will dish out 4,000pps 
and 1.5Mbps of upload traffic. Then you can go ahead and try and 
download something at the same time across that same link using the 
same CPE connection.


If it were a telco-T1, the download would not even notice the upload. 
Wireless, being a half-duplex medium, does not compare to a 
full-duplex line. Licensed and true microwave systems are a different 
story.


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Travis,

We do not see that on our network.
One provider's usage rarely has an effect on the others, that can be 
significantly noticed.
When bandwidth management is done at the first hop at every cell 
site, this does not happen.

I'm referring to using Trango 5830s.

You are however bringing up the difference between time syncronized 
circuit based apposed to Ethernet products.
With Ethernet, there is always a scale up and scale down of speed, 
based on the TCP protocol when limits are reached, but this has 
nothing to do with half or full duplex. The same degregation using 
Ethernet applies to traffic going in the same direction.
For Ethernet to be a viable repalcement for T1, it must be of 
greater capacity.


The second thing, distinguishing the difference between T1 and DSL 
classe, and which Wireless compares to, is more than just Speed and 
Duplex.


SLAs,  Repair Time, Network support, Peak Speed, etc.

the idea is that unused bandwdith can never be gone back to regain 
use of. So offering 3 mbps speed allows network usage to be 
delivered sooner, so bandwidth is free for upcomming traffic, 
therefore making more traffic available for that upcomming need. 
Higher capacity allows more efficient use of the bandwdith.  So we 
find that our customers tend to recognize a perception of much 
better speed on our wireless links than our T1 links, because they 
have fewer congestion times.


The secret is for the bandwdith management to be provided equally on 
a PRIORITY basis.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband



Matt,

This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps 
upload, it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic, music 
sharing, worms, etc.). With a wireless connection, even at 3.0Mbps, 
a 1.5Mbps upload will bring it almost to a stop.


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is equivalent 
to 1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD radios can have 
dynamic time division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex link superior IMHO.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:


Tom,

Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco 
service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless?


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Chris,

I agree with your finding.
But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or 
what was the finding?)
For example, its not only important to determine what terms the 
customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what 
meaning they have for those terms that they identify with.


For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed 
Internet was the term that the consumer best identified with.
However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much with 
DialUP service as they do with Broadband.
And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL 
or Cable services.  Why do we want to create the image of 
offering commodity services, design for huge over subscription, 
low repair SLAs, and best effort?


Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as 
setting standards for quality?


We don't want to be identified as that.  We want to be something 
better.


Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi 
services to your clients, and you are striving to be a 
competitor to Cable and DSL quality, sure Brand the product as 
DSL, and its a good thing.  And please do so, so your wireless 
is not identified with what we offer, branding high quality 
fiber extension and T1 replacement services.


In your focus group did you get any results on their perception 
of quality that they associated with Cable and DSL or the term 
High Speed Internet?


Would you suggest branding your T1 or Fiber offerings as High 
Speed Internet, since customers best identify with that term?


Maybe we should

RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-06 Thread Victoria
Hadn't thought about it that way...so our 5 Mbps/1 Mbps link would be a 6
Mbps link.

Yep, a name is an important marketing tool.  
I think our name St. Louis Broadband helps us out (stlbroadband.com and
stlouisbroadband.com), but if we ever want to expand our territory, we would
have a problem. 

Victoria

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 1:14 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

We don't, but there is no need to.

3 mbps half duplex = 1.5 mbps full duplex.
(Actually bettter, because when upload speed not used, its there to be used
for high speeds in the other direction.)

Our router bandwidth management allows setting speed in both directions
(using HTB).

Its one marketing trick that works to our advantage.
We advertise symetrical, not simultaneous Full Duplex.

That means we have same speed both directions, not top speed in both
directions at the same time.
So a client pushing 2 mbps down and 1 mbps up, would equal a 3 mbps link.
We can advertise speeds up to the max speed someone can acheive in a
specific direction.
Because most clients do not use equal speed in both direction, nuch of their
Full Duplex bandwidth just goes wasted and unused on T1s.

So 3 mbps is perceived as twice the speed than their T1 for those that don;t
catch the difference between full and half duplex. And a great replacement
for their T1.  Those that do understand the difference, well, we are still
offering equivellent capacity.

What also works to our advantage is that T1 providers also generally don't
offer guaranteed bandwidth either. A T1 might be as low as $500 a month, but
if the buy a true MCI guaranteed bandwidth circuit, paying 95%tile, they'd
easilly be paying over $1000 buck for the T1 link. So technically
competitor's T1s are MIR bandwidth under their SLA. So we also spec our
product at MIR.  We stay away from any term like Best Effort associated with
commodity services like DSL.

The second we take out local loop costs, we can always be more cost
effective, with out sacrificing quality on the link at the back end, because
we actually ahve a lower front end cost.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message -
From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband


 Tom,

 Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco service?

 How are you doing full-duplex with wireless?

 Travis
 Microserv

 Tom DeReggi wrote:

 Chris,

 I agree with your finding.
 But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or what was 
 the finding?)
 For example, its not only important to determine what terms the customer 
 best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning they have for 
 those terms that they identify with.

 For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed Internet 
 was the term that the consumer best identified with.
 However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much with DialUP 
 service as they do with Broadband.
 And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL or Cable 
 services.  Why do we want to create the image of offering commodity 
 services, design for huge over subscription, low repair SLAs, and best 
 effort?

 Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as setting 
 standards for quality?

 We don't want to be identified as that.  We want to be something better.

 Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi services to your

 clients, and you are striving to be a competitor to Cable and DSL 
 quality, sure Brand the product as DSL, and its a good thing.  And please

 do so, so your wireless is not identified with what we offer, branding 
 high quality fiber extension and T1 replacement services.

 In your focus group did you get any results on their perception of 
 quality that they associated with Cable and DSL or the term High Speed 
 Internet?

 Would you suggest branding your T1 or Fiber offerings as High Speed 
 Internet, since customers best identify with that term?

 Maybe we should be branding our service as Wi-Fiber. or Maybe Ethernet

 Internet Access  (of course like end users will know what Ethernet 
 means.)

 Its a tough call because if we called our service Fiber or T1 we'd 
 most likely be liars based on their true definitions.
 Nothing exists realting to quality for us to piggy back on.

 All though Broadband may not be as well recognized, its doesn;t 
 associate us with Telcos or Cable companies necessarilly.
 Broadband is truthfully defined as a general term to cover any media type

 of delivery of Internet Access.

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


 - Original Message - From: chris cooper 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: 'WISPA

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-06 Thread Matt Liotta
.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband



Hi,

If someone wants to setup whatever wireless network they would like 
to test and then let me know, I'll gladly send you a CD you can pop 
in a laptop and connect at the CPE side. It will dish out 4,000pps 
and 1.5Mbps of upload traffic. Then you can go ahead and try and 
download something at the same time across that same link using the 
same CPE connection.


If it were a telco-T1, the download would not even notice the 
upload. Wireless, being a half-duplex medium, does not compare to a 
full-duplex line. Licensed and true microwave systems are a 
different story.


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Travis,

We do not see that on our network.
One provider's usage rarely has an effect on the others, that can 
be significantly noticed.
When bandwidth management is done at the first hop at every cell 
site, this does not happen.

I'm referring to using Trango 5830s.

You are however bringing up the difference between time syncronized 
circuit based apposed to Ethernet products.
With Ethernet, there is always a scale up and scale down of speed, 
based on the TCP protocol when limits are reached, but this has 
nothing to do with half or full duplex. The same degregation using 
Ethernet applies to traffic going in the same direction.
For Ethernet to be a viable repalcement for T1, it must be of 
greater capacity.


The second thing, distinguishing the difference between T1 and DSL 
classe, and which Wireless compares to, is more than just Speed and 
Duplex.


SLAs,  Repair Time, Network support, Peak Speed, etc.

the idea is that unused bandwdith can never be gone back to regain 
use of. So offering 3 mbps speed allows network usage to be 
delivered sooner, so bandwidth is free for upcomming traffic, 
therefore making more traffic available for that upcomming need. 
Higher capacity allows more efficient use of the bandwdith.  So we 
find that our customers tend to recognize a perception of much 
better speed on our wireless links than our T1 links, because they 
have fewer congestion times.


The secret is for the bandwdith management to be provided equally 
on a PRIORITY basis.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband



Matt,

This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps 
upload, it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic, 
music sharing, worms, etc.). With a wireless connection, even at 
3.0Mbps, a 1.5Mbps upload will bring it almost to a stop.


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is equivalent 
to 1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD radios can have 
dynamic time division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex link superior IMHO.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:


Tom,

Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 
telco service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless?


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Chris,

I agree with your finding.
But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or 
what was the finding?)
For example, its not only important to determine what terms the 
customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what 
meaning they have for those terms that they identify with.


For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed 
Internet was the term that the consumer best identified with.
However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much 
with DialUP service as they do with Broadband.
And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL 
or Cable services.  Why do we want to create the image of 
offering commodity services, design for huge over subscription, 
low repair SLAs, and best effort?


Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as 
setting standards for quality?


We don't want to be identified as that.  We want to be 
something better.


Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi 
services to your clients, and you are striving to be a 
competitor to Cable and DSL quality, sure Brand the product as 
DSL, and its a good thing. And please do so, so your wireless 
is not identified with what we offer, branding high quality 
fiber extension and T1 replacement services.


In your focus group did you get any results on their perception 
of quality that they associated with Cable and DSL or the term 
High Speed Internet?


Would you suggest branding your T1 or Fiber offerings as High 
Speed Internet, since customers best identify with that term?


Maybe we should be branding our service as Wi-Fiber. or Maybe

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-06 Thread Tom DeReggi

Amen, Matt.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband


I'll take a wireless link over a T1 any day if for no other reason then 
the wireless link will be more reliable. You're never going to suffer the 
loss of a link due to a backhoe or a drunk driver hitting a pole, which 
are the two most likely reasons for a T1 failure.


Personally, I believe that fixed wireless is truly better and I would 
argue someone has no business working for a fixed wireless company if they 
don't believe it too.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:


Tom,

The original postition and question was are you comparing your wireless 
service to telco T1. After your posts, it's obvious that you are... and 
I would argue that a land-based line will ALWAYS be better than wireless, 
with all other factors being the same. Now, if you are able to save the 
customer $xx per month by using wireless, then there is an advantage. If 
you can provide other services, then there is an advantage. However, 
comparing a half-duplex system to a full-duplex system and saying they 
are the same is... not correct.


If you had the choice between running a full-duplex wireless system and 
half-duplex, which would you do? :)


If you could purchase a land-based connection to go from point A to point 
B for $500 per month, or rent roof-top space at point A and point B for 
$500 per month, which would you choose? ;)


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Travis,

I'd love to perform your test.
Send me the CD.
Understanding that I will provision the customer at 3 mbps on our first 
hop router, using Trango 10mbps PtMP radio link, and that your CD test 
will generate 1500mbps of data transfer.


There are three seperate issues here. 1) One user's connection able to 
effect another user's connection, and 2) On one particular link, their 
upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under normal opperation 
within acceptable use policy, and 3) On one particular link, their 
upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under a Denial of 
Service situation.


With any type of broadband, if the capacity of a link is saturated, it 
results in packet loss and performance loss for the individual's 
connection. Its up to the end user to protect against violation of 
acceptable use policy like viruses that deliver abnormal PPS, or any 
queueing needed to allow fair priority of data type on the LAN side of 
the link. These problems can also all be solved with a feature rich 
client side router before plugging to our Broadband, regardless of the 
Duplex of our link.  In other words, The same performance problems will 
result on a full Duplex link, if one direction gets saturated, and that 
same direction traffic will result in packet loss, and all communication 
generally requires some communication in each of the direction for 
traffic to flow in one direction.  So where the problem may be worse 
with Half Duplex, the problem still exists in some capacity with Full 
Duplex. I'd argue that its possible to generate enough pps on a Full 
Duplex Link in one direction, that will overload the processing power of 
the radio CPU, and the other direction still getting horrible 
performance even with no traffic passing in that other direction even 
though Full Duplex, because no CPU time is available for it. Unless each 
direction has its own CPU, which is not likely.  This is an issue of 
whether the radio used can handle the number of PPS sent to it in high 
DOS situations.


I'd also argue under this situation 4000 pps 1500 mbps, that the 
customer's use of the circuit in any capacity when a DOS of that type 
was happening, would be not possible, and justify immediate tech action 
to resolve, regardless of whether one direction of traffic was usable. 
I;ve never met a company where having one direction traffic only was 
acceptable or tolerable.


You did however hit on an important clarification. A half duplex link 
can not distinguish on its own wether upload or download traffic at a 
given moment is priority or more important to the subscriber. When there 
is a large demand for legitimate broadband, why would the data in one 
direction be any more priority than the other, when capacity is reached? 
Either way the customer is compromised in throughout needs one direction 
or another. Doesn't it really mean that the customer needs more total 
bandwidth? Is it any more important that mail was sent and not received? 
Full Duplex is one way for a customer to solve that problem, and reserve 
bandwdith in one direction. But does that really solve the problem? 
Maybe if the circuit's intended use is for 100% VOIP a symetrical 
application.  But not many circuits are used for that purpose.  And if I 
really wanted to, I can set my bandwdith management

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-06 Thread Travis Johnson
 that really solve the problem? Maybe if 
the circuit's intended use is for 100% VOIP a symetrical 
application.  But not many circuits are used for that purpose.  And 
if I really wanted to, I can set my bandwdith management to be 
seperate for upload and download, and immulate a Full Duplex 
connection, over the half duplex link. But what it really says to me 
is the importance that customers have front end queuing / IP 
prioritization when using bi-directional sensitive applications such 
as VOIP.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband



Hi,

If someone wants to setup whatever wireless network they would like 
to test and then let me know, I'll gladly send you a CD you can pop 
in a laptop and connect at the CPE side. It will dish out 4,000pps 
and 1.5Mbps of upload traffic. Then you can go ahead and try and 
download something at the same time across that same link using the 
same CPE connection.


If it were a telco-T1, the download would not even notice the 
upload. Wireless, being a half-duplex medium, does not compare to a 
full-duplex line. Licensed and true microwave systems are a 
different story.


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Travis,

We do not see that on our network.
One provider's usage rarely has an effect on the others, that can 
be significantly noticed.
When bandwidth management is done at the first hop at every cell 
site, this does not happen.

I'm referring to using Trango 5830s.

You are however bringing up the difference between time 
syncronized circuit based apposed to Ethernet products.
With Ethernet, there is always a scale up and scale down of speed, 
based on the TCP protocol when limits are reached, but this has 
nothing to do with half or full duplex. The same degregation using 
Ethernet applies to traffic going in the same direction.
For Ethernet to be a viable repalcement for T1, it must be of 
greater capacity.


The second thing, distinguishing the difference between T1 and DSL 
classe, and which Wireless compares to, is more than just Speed 
and Duplex.


SLAs,  Repair Time, Network support, Peak Speed, etc.

the idea is that unused bandwdith can never be gone back to regain 
use of. So offering 3 mbps speed allows network usage to be 
delivered sooner, so bandwidth is free for upcomming traffic, 
therefore making more traffic available for that upcomming need. 
Higher capacity allows more efficient use of the bandwdith.  So we 
find that our customers tend to recognize a perception of much 
better speed on our wireless links than our T1 links, because they 
have fewer congestion times.


The secret is for the bandwdith management to be provided equally 
on a PRIORITY basis.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband



Matt,

This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps 
upload, it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic, 
music sharing, worms, etc.). With a wireless connection, even at 
3.0Mbps, a 1.5Mbps upload will bring it almost to a stop.


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is 
equivalent to 1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD radios 
can have dynamic time division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex link 
superior IMHO.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:


Tom,

Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 
telco service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless?


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Chris,

I agree with your finding.
But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. 
(Or what was the finding?)
For example, its not only important to determine what terms 
the customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what 
meaning they have for those terms that they identify with.


For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed 
Internet was the term that the consumer best identified with.
However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much 
with DialUP service as they do with Broadband.
And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with 
DSL or Cable services.  Why do we want to create the image of 
offering commodity services, design for huge over 
subscription, low repair SLAs, and best effort?


Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far 
as setting standards for quality?


We don't want to be identified as that.  We want to be 
something better.


Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi 
services to your clients, and you are striving to be a 
competitor to Cable and DSL quality, sure Brand the product as 
DSL

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-06 Thread Tom DeReggi
, and the other direction still 
getting horrible performance even with no traffic passing in that other 
direction even though Full Duplex, because no CPU time is available for 
it. Unless each direction has its own CPU, which is not likely.  This 
is an issue of whether the radio used can handle the number of PPS sent 
to it in high DOS situations.


I'd also argue under this situation 4000 pps 1500 mbps, that the 
customer's use of the circuit in any capacity when a DOS of that type 
was happening, would be not possible, and justify immediate tech action 
to resolve, regardless of whether one direction of traffic was usable. 
I;ve never met a company where having one direction traffic only was 
acceptable or tolerable.


You did however hit on an important clarification. A half duplex link 
can not distinguish on its own wether upload or download traffic at a 
given moment is priority or more important to the subscriber. When 
there is a large demand for legitimate broadband, why would the data in 
one direction be any more priority than the other, when capacity is 
reached? Either way the customer is compromised in throughout needs one 
direction or another. Doesn't it really mean that the customer needs 
more total bandwidth? Is it any more important that mail was sent and 
not received?  Full Duplex is one way for a customer to solve that 
problem, and reserve bandwdith in one direction. But does that really 
solve the problem? Maybe if the circuit's intended use is for 100% VOIP 
a symetrical application.  But not many circuits are used for that 
purpose.  And if I really wanted to, I can set my bandwdith management 
to be seperate for upload and download, and immulate a Full Duplex 
connection, over the half duplex link. But what it really says to me is 
the importance that customers have front end queuing / IP 
prioritization when using bi-directional sensitive applications such as 
VOIP.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband



Hi,

If someone wants to setup whatever wireless network they would like to 
test and then let me know, I'll gladly send you a CD you can pop in a 
laptop and connect at the CPE side. It will dish out 4,000pps and 
1.5Mbps of upload traffic. Then you can go ahead and try and download 
something at the same time across that same link using the same CPE 
connection.


If it were a telco-T1, the download would not even notice the upload. 
Wireless, being a half-duplex medium, does not compare to a 
full-duplex line. Licensed and true microwave systems are a different 
story.


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Travis,

We do not see that on our network.
One provider's usage rarely has an effect on the others, that can be 
significantly noticed.
When bandwidth management is done at the first hop at every cell 
site, this does not happen.

I'm referring to using Trango 5830s.

You are however bringing up the difference between time syncronized 
circuit based apposed to Ethernet products.
With Ethernet, there is always a scale up and scale down of speed, 
based on the TCP protocol when limits are reached, but this has 
nothing to do with half or full duplex. The same degregation using 
Ethernet applies to traffic going in the same direction.
For Ethernet to be a viable repalcement for T1, it must be of greater 
capacity.


The second thing, distinguishing the difference between T1 and DSL 
classe, and which Wireless compares to, is more than just Speed and 
Duplex.


SLAs,  Repair Time, Network support, Peak Speed, etc.

the idea is that unused bandwdith can never be gone back to regain 
use of. So offering 3 mbps speed allows network usage to be delivered 
sooner, so bandwidth is free for upcomming traffic, therefore making 
more traffic available for that upcomming need. Higher capacity 
allows more efficient use of the bandwdith.  So we find that our 
customers tend to recognize a perception of much better speed on our 
wireless links than our T1 links, because they have fewer congestion 
times.


The secret is for the bandwdith management to be provided equally on 
a PRIORITY basis.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband



Matt,

This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps 
upload, it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic, music 
sharing, worms, etc.). With a wireless connection, even at 3.0Mbps, 
a 1.5Mbps upload will bring it almost to a stop.


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is equivalent 
to 1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-06 Thread Travis Johnson
 for 
traffic to flow in one direction.  So where the problem may be 
worse with Half Duplex, the problem still exists in some capacity 
with Full Duplex. I'd argue that its possible to generate enough 
pps on a Full Duplex Link in one direction, that will overload the 
processing power of the radio CPU, and the other direction still 
getting horrible performance even with no traffic passing in that 
other direction even though Full Duplex, because no CPU time is 
available for it. Unless each direction has its own CPU, which is 
not likely.  This is an issue of whether the radio used can handle 
the number of PPS sent to it in high DOS situations.


I'd also argue under this situation 4000 pps 1500 mbps, that the 
customer's use of the circuit in any capacity when a DOS of that 
type was happening, would be not possible, and justify immediate 
tech action to resolve, regardless of whether one direction of 
traffic was usable. I;ve never met a company where having one 
direction traffic only was acceptable or tolerable.


You did however hit on an important clarification. A half duplex 
link can not distinguish on its own wether upload or download 
traffic at a given moment is priority or more important to the 
subscriber. When there is a large demand for legitimate broadband, 
why would the data in one direction be any more priority than the 
other, when capacity is reached? Either way the customer is 
compromised in throughout needs one direction or another. Doesn't 
it really mean that the customer needs more total bandwidth? Is it 
any more important that mail was sent and not received?  Full 
Duplex is one way for a customer to solve that problem, and 
reserve bandwdith in one direction. But does that really solve the 
problem? Maybe if the circuit's intended use is for 100% VOIP a 
symetrical application.  But not many circuits are used for that 
purpose.  And if I really wanted to, I can set my bandwdith 
management to be seperate for upload and download, and immulate a 
Full Duplex connection, over the half duplex link. But what it 
really says to me is the importance that customers have front end 
queuing / IP prioritization when using bi-directional sensitive 
applications such as VOIP.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband



Hi,

If someone wants to setup whatever wireless network they would 
like to test and then let me know, I'll gladly send you a CD you 
can pop in a laptop and connect at the CPE side. It will dish out 
4,000pps and 1.5Mbps of upload traffic. Then you can go ahead and 
try and download something at the same time across that same link 
using the same CPE connection.


If it were a telco-T1, the download would not even notice the 
upload. Wireless, being a half-duplex medium, does not compare to 
a full-duplex line. Licensed and true microwave systems are a 
different story.


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Travis,

We do not see that on our network.
One provider's usage rarely has an effect on the others, that 
can be significantly noticed.
When bandwidth management is done at the first hop at every cell 
site, this does not happen.

I'm referring to using Trango 5830s.

You are however bringing up the difference between time 
syncronized circuit based apposed to Ethernet products.
With Ethernet, there is always a scale up and scale down of 
speed, based on the TCP protocol when limits are reached, but 
this has nothing to do with half or full duplex. The same 
degregation using Ethernet applies to traffic going in the same 
direction.
For Ethernet to be a viable repalcement for T1, it must be of 
greater capacity.


The second thing, distinguishing the difference between T1 and 
DSL classe, and which Wireless compares to, is more than just 
Speed and Duplex.


SLAs,  Repair Time, Network support, Peak Speed, etc.

the idea is that unused bandwdith can never be gone back to 
regain use of. So offering 3 mbps speed allows network usage to 
be delivered sooner, so bandwidth is free for upcomming traffic, 
therefore making more traffic available for that upcomming need. 
Higher capacity allows more efficient use of the bandwdith.  So 
we find that our customers tend to recognize a perception of 
much better speed on our wireless links than our T1 links, 
because they have fewer congestion times.


The secret is for the bandwdith management to be provided 
equally on a PRIORITY basis.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband



Matt,

This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps 
upload, it has

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-06 Thread John Scrivner
 was acceptable or tolerable.


You did however hit on an important clarification. A half duplex 
link can not distinguish on its own wether upload or download 
traffic at a given moment is priority or more important to the 
subscriber. When there is a large demand for legitimate broadband, 
why would the data in one direction be any more priority than the 
other, when capacity is reached? Either way the customer is 
compromised in throughout needs one direction or another. Doesn't 
it really mean that the customer needs more total bandwidth? Is it 
any more important that mail was sent and not received?  Full 
Duplex is one way for a customer to solve that problem, and reserve 
bandwdith in one direction. But does that really solve the problem? 
Maybe if the circuit's intended use is for 100% VOIP a symetrical 
application.  But not many circuits are used for that purpose.  And 
if I really wanted to, I can set my bandwdith management to be 
seperate for upload and download, and immulate a Full Duplex 
connection, over the half duplex link. But what it really says to 
me is the importance that customers have front end queuing / IP 
prioritization when using bi-directional sensitive applications 
such as VOIP.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband



Hi,

If someone wants to setup whatever wireless network they would 
like to test and then let me know, I'll gladly send you a CD you 
can pop in a laptop and connect at the CPE side. It will dish out 
4,000pps and 1.5Mbps of upload traffic. Then you can go ahead and 
try and download something at the same time across that same link 
using the same CPE connection.


If it were a telco-T1, the download would not even notice the 
upload. Wireless, being a half-duplex medium, does not compare to 
a full-duplex line. Licensed and true microwave systems are a 
different story.


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Travis,

We do not see that on our network.
One provider's usage rarely has an effect on the others, that can 
be significantly noticed.
When bandwidth management is done at the first hop at every cell 
site, this does not happen.

I'm referring to using Trango 5830s.

You are however bringing up the difference between time 
syncronized circuit based apposed to Ethernet products.
With Ethernet, there is always a scale up and scale down of 
speed, based on the TCP protocol when limits are reached, but 
this has nothing to do with half or full duplex. The same 
degregation using Ethernet applies to traffic going in the same 
direction.
For Ethernet to be a viable repalcement for T1, it must be of 
greater capacity.


The second thing, distinguishing the difference between T1 and 
DSL classe, and which Wireless compares to, is more than just 
Speed and Duplex.


SLAs,  Repair Time, Network support, Peak Speed, etc.

the idea is that unused bandwdith can never be gone back to 
regain use of. So offering 3 mbps speed allows network usage to 
be delivered sooner, so bandwidth is free for upcomming traffic, 
therefore making more traffic available for that upcomming need. 
Higher capacity allows more efficient use of the bandwdith.  So 
we find that our customers tend to recognize a perception of much 
better speed on our wireless links than our T1 links, because 
they have fewer congestion times.


The secret is for the bandwdith management to be provided equally 
on a PRIORITY basis.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband



Matt,

This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps 
upload, it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic, 
music sharing, worms, etc.). With a wireless connection, even at 
3.0Mbps, a 1.5Mbps upload will bring it almost to a stop.


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is 
equivalent to 1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD 
radios can have dynamic time division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex 
link superior IMHO.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:


Tom,

Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 
telco service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless?


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Chris,

I agree with your finding.
But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. 
(Or what was the finding?)
For example, its not only important to determine what terms 
the customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what 
meaning they have for those terms that they identify with.


For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed 
Internet was the term

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-06 Thread Tom DeReggi

Travis,

Can you provide the Sysinfo screen for your Quest T1 router, showing 3 years 
please.


Could you please post the sysinfo of the 5800 radio showing an uptime of 
48 months


My mistake. It has never failed in 4 years, however, it has been taken down 
by me for scheduled maintenance.  I forgot, I took the link down about a 
year and a half ago for 30 seconds, so I could plug it into a new auto 
remote Reboot device.  However, 567 days aint bad.


# sysinfo
[Hardware Version] 8002
[FPGA Version] 02103000 [Checksum] 7ADD5AB6
[Firmware Version] AP 1p11H8002D03100301 [Checksum] EF3391FF
[Device ID] 00 01 DE 00 31 C7 [Base ID] 1 [AP ID] 2
[System Up Time] 567 day(s) 18:06:04
[Radio Temperature] 31 C
[Opmode] ap [Default Opmode] ap [Opmode Start] 30 sec
[IP] 10.0.1.2 [Subnet Mask] 255.255.255.0 [Gateway] 10.0.1.1
[Httpd Port] 80 [Httpd Status] listen
[Telnetd Port] 23 [Telnetd Status] connected (10.0.1.1,53208)
[Tftpd] disabled
[MIR Threshold] off [MIR Threshold Kbps]  4096
[Active Channel] 6 v 5836 MHz
[RF Rx Threshold] -80 dBm
[RF Tx Power] 22 dBm
Channel Table: (MHz)
[Ch#01] 5736 [Ch#02] 5756 [Ch#03] 5776 [Ch#04] 5796 [Ch#05] 5816 [Ch#06] 
5836
[Ch#07] 5260 [Ch#08] 5280 [Ch#09] 5300 [Ch#10] 5320 [Ch#11] 5340 [Ch#12] 
5736
[Ch#13] 5736 [Ch#14] 5736 [Ch#15] 5736 [Ch#16] 5736 [Ch#17] 5736 [Ch#18] 
5736
[Ch#19] 5736 [Ch#20] 5736 [Ch#21] 5736 [Ch#22] 5736 [Ch#23] 5736 [Ch#24] 
5736
[Ch#25] 5736 [Ch#26] 5736 [Ch#27] 5736 [Ch#28] 5736 [Ch#29] 5736 [Ch#30] 
5736


[Broadcast Packet] pass
[Remarks] ap-2, ap-rockville
Success.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband



Tom,

Could you please post the sysinfo of the 5800 radio showing an uptime of 
48 months... I've never seen one over 10 months (even with over 100 Trango 
AP's running now). :)


Repair time for any down T1 lines has been less than 24 hours... usually 
1-2 hours.


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:



Travis,

I have point to point T1 lines from Qwest that have been up 100% for the 
last 3 years. That's 100.0% uptime. Do you have any wireless links that 
have that type of reliability?



Yes. I have a 12 mile backhaul using PtMP Trango 5800s, From Rockville, 
Md to Vienna, VA, that has not went down in 4 years.


This year I had lost some high end subs in DC, due to excessive outages 
over a 6 month period. They bailed, because they doubted wireless, 
however, the ironic part was the fiber carrier was the faught.  The Fiber 
partner had outages 5 to 2 ratio.


2 Outages Wireless, itemized as:
   1 outage was due to antenna moving - repaired 2 hours.
   1 outage interference and required channel change - repaired 30 
minutes.

5 Outages - Fiber carrier, itemized as:
   1. Serious Peering problem (level 3). - repair time 1 week
   2. Fiber converter failure -packet loss - Fiber carrier could not 
respond for 8 hours, I performed the prepair while waiting for their 
tech.
   3. Bad cell in battery backup - 4 hours, a second outage required 
for repair, 10 minutes.
   4. Fiber end got dirty by airborn dust -packet loss - Intermittent 
problems 2 weeks while carrier denied a problem.  I performed repair and 
put new end on cable.

   5. Fiber carrier outage- fiber cut some where.

For comparisons, both links wireless and Fiber were PtP links.
Many  T1s are delivered over Fiber now.
Wireless can be just as reliable.

Now I'll ask... Can you Qwest T1 deliver 10 mbps? How long did it take to 
get installed? For any of your T1s that did fail, what was the repair 
time?


I am probably one of the largest WISP operators on this and any wireless 
list. I built our entire wireless backbone from the ground up starting 
in 1997. I spent 3 hours on a tower this morning installing two new 
AP's. I understand where wireless fits and where it doesn't.


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

I'll take a wireless link over a T1 any day if for no other reason then 
the wireless link will be more reliable. You're never going to suffer 
the loss of a link due to a backhoe or a drunk driver hitting a pole, 
which are the two most likely reasons for a T1 failure.


Personally, I believe that fixed wireless is truly better and I would 
argue someone has no business working for a fixed wireless company if 
they don't believe it too.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:


Tom,

The original postition and question was are you comparing your 
wireless service to telco T1. After your posts, it's obvious that you 
are... and I would argue that a land-based line will ALWAYS be better 
than wireless, with all other factors being the same. Now, if you are 
able to save the customer $xx per month by using wireless, then there 
is an advantage. If you can provide other services, then there is an 
advantage. However, comparing a half

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-06 Thread Travis Johnson
Wow... 567 days is the longest I've seen on any wireless radio... that's 
very cool.


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Travis,

Can you provide the Sysinfo screen for your Quest T1 router, showing 3 
years please.


Could you please post the sysinfo of the 5800 radio showing an 
uptime of 48 months



My mistake. It has never failed in 4 years, however, it has been taken 
down by me for scheduled maintenance.  I forgot, I took the link down 
about a year and a half ago for 30 seconds, so I could plug it into a 
new auto remote Reboot device.  However, 567 days aint bad.


# sysinfo
[Hardware Version] 8002
[FPGA Version] 02103000 [Checksum] 7ADD5AB6
[Firmware Version] AP 1p11H8002D03100301 [Checksum] EF3391FF
[Device ID] 00 01 DE 00 31 C7 [Base ID] 1 [AP ID] 2
[System Up Time] 567 day(s) 18:06:04
[Radio Temperature] 31 C
[Opmode] ap [Default Opmode] ap [Opmode Start] 30 sec
[IP] 10.0.1.2 [Subnet Mask] 255.255.255.0 [Gateway] 10.0.1.1
[Httpd Port] 80 [Httpd Status] listen
[Telnetd Port] 23 [Telnetd Status] connected (10.0.1.1,53208)
[Tftpd] disabled
[MIR Threshold] off [MIR Threshold Kbps]  4096
[Active Channel] 6 v 5836 MHz
[RF Rx Threshold] -80 dBm
[RF Tx Power] 22 dBm
Channel Table: (MHz)
[Ch#01] 5736 [Ch#02] 5756 [Ch#03] 5776 [Ch#04] 5796 [Ch#05] 5816 
[Ch#06] 5836
[Ch#07] 5260 [Ch#08] 5280 [Ch#09] 5300 [Ch#10] 5320 [Ch#11] 5340 
[Ch#12] 5736
[Ch#13] 5736 [Ch#14] 5736 [Ch#15] 5736 [Ch#16] 5736 [Ch#17] 5736 
[Ch#18] 5736
[Ch#19] 5736 [Ch#20] 5736 [Ch#21] 5736 [Ch#22] 5736 [Ch#23] 5736 
[Ch#24] 5736
[Ch#25] 5736 [Ch#26] 5736 [Ch#27] 5736 [Ch#28] 5736 [Ch#29] 5736 
[Ch#30] 5736


[Broadcast Packet] pass
[Remarks] ap-2, ap-rockville
Success.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband



Tom,

Could you please post the sysinfo of the 5800 radio showing an 
uptime of 48 months... I've never seen one over 10 months (even with 
over 100 Trango AP's running now). :)


Repair time for any down T1 lines has been less than 24 hours... 
usually 1-2 hours.


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:



Travis,

I have point to point T1 lines from Qwest that have been up 100% 
for the last 3 years. That's 100.0% uptime. Do you have any 
wireless links that have that type of reliability?




Yes. I have a 12 mile backhaul using PtMP Trango 5800s, From 
Rockville, Md to Vienna, VA, that has not went down in 4 years.


This year I had lost some high end subs in DC, due to excessive 
outages over a 6 month period. They bailed, because they doubted 
wireless, however, the ironic part was the fiber carrier was the 
faught.  The Fiber partner had outages 5 to 2 ratio.


2 Outages Wireless, itemized as:
   1 outage was due to antenna moving - repaired 2 hours.
   1 outage interference and required channel change - repaired 30 
minutes.

5 Outages - Fiber carrier, itemized as:
   1. Serious Peering problem (level 3). - repair time 1 week
   2. Fiber converter failure -packet loss - Fiber carrier could 
not respond for 8 hours, I performed the prepair while waiting for 
their tech.
   3. Bad cell in battery backup - 4 hours, a second outage 
required for repair, 10 minutes.
   4. Fiber end got dirty by airborn dust -packet loss - 
Intermittent problems 2 weeks while carrier denied a problem.  I 
performed repair and put new end on cable.

   5. Fiber carrier outage- fiber cut some where.

For comparisons, both links wireless and Fiber were PtP links.
Many  T1s are delivered over Fiber now.
Wireless can be just as reliable.

Now I'll ask... Can you Qwest T1 deliver 10 mbps? How long did it 
take to get installed? For any of your T1s that did fail, what was 
the repair time?


I am probably one of the largest WISP operators on this and any 
wireless list. I built our entire wireless backbone from the ground 
up starting in 1997. I spent 3 hours on a tower this morning 
installing two new AP's. I understand where wireless fits and where 
it doesn't.


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

I'll take a wireless link over a T1 any day if for no other reason 
then the wireless link will be more reliable. You're never going 
to suffer the loss of a link due to a backhoe or a drunk driver 
hitting a pole, which are the two most likely reasons for a T1 
failure.


Personally, I believe that fixed wireless is truly better and I 
would argue someone has no business working for a fixed wireless 
company if they don't believe it too.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:


Tom,

The original postition and question was are you comparing your 
wireless service to telco T1. After your posts, it's obvious 
that you are... and I would argue that a land-based line will 
ALWAYS be better than wireless, with all other factors being the 
same. Now, if you are able to save the customer $xx per month by 
using

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-06 Thread Brian Rohrbacher

new auto remote Reboot device

You should go unplug it again to take the new auto remote reboot device 
to a radio that needs it.  :)  LOL


Tom DeReggi wrote:


Travis,

Can you provide the Sysinfo screen for your Quest T1 router, showing 3 
years please.


Could you please post the sysinfo of the 5800 radio showing an 
uptime of 48 months



My mistake. It has never failed in 4 years, however, it has been taken 
down by me for scheduled maintenance.  I forgot, I took the link down 
about a year and a half ago for 30 seconds, so I could plug it into a 
new auto remote Reboot device.  However, 567 days aint bad.


# sysinfo
[Hardware Version] 8002
[FPGA Version] 02103000 [Checksum] 7ADD5AB6
[Firmware Version] AP 1p11H8002D03100301 [Checksum] EF3391FF
[Device ID] 00 01 DE 00 31 C7 [Base ID] 1 [AP ID] 2
[System Up Time] 567 day(s) 18:06:04
[Radio Temperature] 31 C
[Opmode] ap [Default Opmode] ap [Opmode Start] 30 sec
[IP] 10.0.1.2 [Subnet Mask] 255.255.255.0 [Gateway] 10.0.1.1
[Httpd Port] 80 [Httpd Status] listen
[Telnetd Port] 23 [Telnetd Status] connected (10.0.1.1,53208)
[Tftpd] disabled
[MIR Threshold] off [MIR Threshold Kbps]  4096
[Active Channel] 6 v 5836 MHz
[RF Rx Threshold] -80 dBm
[RF Tx Power] 22 dBm
Channel Table: (MHz)
[Ch#01] 5736 [Ch#02] 5756 [Ch#03] 5776 [Ch#04] 5796 [Ch#05] 5816 
[Ch#06] 5836
[Ch#07] 5260 [Ch#08] 5280 [Ch#09] 5300 [Ch#10] 5320 [Ch#11] 5340 
[Ch#12] 5736
[Ch#13] 5736 [Ch#14] 5736 [Ch#15] 5736 [Ch#16] 5736 [Ch#17] 5736 
[Ch#18] 5736
[Ch#19] 5736 [Ch#20] 5736 [Ch#21] 5736 [Ch#22] 5736 [Ch#23] 5736 
[Ch#24] 5736
[Ch#25] 5736 [Ch#26] 5736 [Ch#27] 5736 [Ch#28] 5736 [Ch#29] 5736 
[Ch#30] 5736


[Broadcast Packet] pass
[Remarks] ap-2, ap-rockville
Success.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband



Tom,

Could you please post the sysinfo of the 5800 radio showing an 
uptime of 48 months... I've never seen one over 10 months (even with 
over 100 Trango AP's running now). :)


Repair time for any down T1 lines has been less than 24 hours... 
usually 1-2 hours.


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:



Travis,

I have point to point T1 lines from Qwest that have been up 100% 
for the last 3 years. That's 100.0% uptime. Do you have any 
wireless links that have that type of reliability?




Yes. I have a 12 mile backhaul using PtMP Trango 5800s, From 
Rockville, Md to Vienna, VA, that has not went down in 4 years.


This year I had lost some high end subs in DC, due to excessive 
outages over a 6 month period. They bailed, because they doubted 
wireless, however, the ironic part was the fiber carrier was the 
faught.  The Fiber partner had outages 5 to 2 ratio.


2 Outages Wireless, itemized as:
   1 outage was due to antenna moving - repaired 2 hours.
   1 outage interference and required channel change - repaired 30 
minutes.

5 Outages - Fiber carrier, itemized as:
   1. Serious Peering problem (level 3). - repair time 1 week
   2. Fiber converter failure -packet loss - Fiber carrier could 
not respond for 8 hours, I performed the prepair while waiting for 
their tech.
   3. Bad cell in battery backup - 4 hours, a second outage 
required for repair, 10 minutes.
   4. Fiber end got dirty by airborn dust -packet loss - 
Intermittent problems 2 weeks while carrier denied a problem.  I 
performed repair and put new end on cable.

   5. Fiber carrier outage- fiber cut some where.

For comparisons, both links wireless and Fiber were PtP links.
Many  T1s are delivered over Fiber now.
Wireless can be just as reliable.

Now I'll ask... Can you Qwest T1 deliver 10 mbps? How long did it 
take to get installed? For any of your T1s that did fail, what was 
the repair time?


I am probably one of the largest WISP operators on this and any 
wireless list. I built our entire wireless backbone from the ground 
up starting in 1997. I spent 3 hours on a tower this morning 
installing two new AP's. I understand where wireless fits and where 
it doesn't.


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

I'll take a wireless link over a T1 any day if for no other reason 
then the wireless link will be more reliable. You're never going 
to suffer the loss of a link due to a backhoe or a drunk driver 
hitting a pole, which are the two most likely reasons for a T1 
failure.


Personally, I believe that fixed wireless is truly better and I 
would argue someone has no business working for a fixed wireless 
company if they don't believe it too.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:


Tom,

The original postition and question was are you comparing your 
wireless service to telco T1. After your posts, it's obvious 
that you are... and I would argue that a land-based line will 
ALWAYS be better than wireless, with all other factors being the 
same. Now, if you are able to save

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-05 Thread Scott Reed




Who says the L in  DSL must be Line?  Call it Digital Subsciber Link and it works for the customer and uses our normal language for the radio connection.

Scott Reed 


Owner 


NewWays 


Wireless Networking 


Network Design, Installation and Administration 


www.nwwnet.net 




-- Original Message 
---

From: Rick Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] 


To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 


Sent: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 00:39:48 -0400 


Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband 



 We find we can NOT sell our service as Wireless Broadband 

 
 

As soon as we market it to customers as DSL or just plain 
 

High Speed Internet, we start scoring. 
 
 

Too many in this area have been educated against Open WIFI 
 

being BAD... 
 
 

The cable we install to the radio is a line, right ? 
 

It carries digital signals, right ? 
 

It allows our customer to become a subscriber, right ? 
 

 

DSL... ;) 
 
 

KyWiFi LLC wrote: 
 
 

I'm noticing more and more WISP's selling their wireless 
 

broadband service as DSL or Wireless DSL. I know 

 

that 75% of the people who call our sales number have 
 

a difficult time understanding what Wireless Broadband is. 
 

They already know what DSL is and that is what the majority 
 

of them ask for so I would be interested in hearing everyone's 
 

opinions on the pros and cons of a WISP labeling their 
 

wireless broadband service as DSL, wDSL or Wireless DSL 
 

instead of Fixed Wireless, WiFI or Wireless Broadband. 
 

 
 

If the masses are more familiar with the term DSL then I 
 

think we would generate more sales leads by advertising 
 

our (WISPs') broadband as DSL instead of Wireless 
 

Broadband. I'm sure the local telco would just love to see 
 

all of us selling DSL. Are there any legalities to this? Does 

 

wireless broadband qualify as DSL or a form of DSL in the 
 

eyes of the law? Is it legal for a WISP to sell their wireless 
 

broadband service as DSL? 
 

 
 

 
 

Sincerely, 
 

Shannon D. Denniston, Co-Founder 
 

KyWiFi, LLC - Mt. Sterling, Kentucky 
 

http://www.KyWiFi.com 

 

http://www.KyWiFiVoice.com 
 

Phone: 859.274.4033 
 

A Broadband Phone  Internet Provider 
 

 
 

== 
 

Wireless Broadband, Local Calling and 
 

UNLIMITED Long Distance only $69! 
 

 
 

No Taxes, No Regulatory Fees, No Hassles 
 

 
 

FREE Site Survey: http://www.KyWiFi.com 
 

== 
 

   
 

 
 

--  
 

WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org 
 
 

Subscribe/Unsubscribe: 
 

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

 

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 
--- 
End of Original Message 
---






-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-05 Thread Rick Smith

great point! :)

Scott Reed wrote:

Who says the L in  DSL must be Line?  Call it Digital Subsciber Link 
and it works for the customer and uses our normal language for the 
radio connection.


Scott Reed
Owner
NewWays
Wireless Networking
Network Design, Installation and Administration
www.nwwnet.net http://www.nwwnet.net/


*-- Original Message ---*
From: Rick Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 00:39:48 -0400
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

 We find we can NOT sell our service as Wireless Broadband

 As soon as we market it to customers as DSL or just plain
 High Speed Internet, we start scoring.

 Too many in this area have been educated against Open WIFI
 being BAD...

 The cable we install to the radio is a line, right ?
 It carries digital signals, right ?
 It allows our customer to become a subscriber, right ?

 DSL... ;)

 KyWiFi LLC wrote:

 I'm noticing more and more WISP's selling their wireless
 broadband service as DSL or Wireless DSL. I know
 that 75% of the people who call our sales number have
 a difficult time understanding what Wireless Broadband is.
 They already know what DSL is and that is what the majority
 of them ask for so I would be interested in hearing everyone's
 opinions on the pros and cons of a WISP labeling their
 wireless broadband service as DSL, wDSL or Wireless DSL
 instead of Fixed Wireless, WiFI or Wireless Broadband.
 
 If the masses are more familiar with the term DSL then I
 think we would generate more sales leads by advertising
 our (WISPs') broadband as DSL instead of Wireless
 Broadband. I'm sure the local telco would just love to see
 all of us selling DSL. Are there any legalities to this? Does
 wireless broadband qualify as DSL or a form of DSL in the
 eyes of the law? Is it legal for a WISP to sell their wireless
 broadband service as DSL?
 
 
 Sincerely,
 Shannon D. Denniston, Co-Founder
 KyWiFi, LLC - Mt. Sterling, Kentucky
 http://www.KyWiFi.com http://www.kywifi.com/
 http://www.KyWiFiVoice.com http://www.kywifivoice.com/
 Phone: 859.274.4033
 A Broadband Phone  Internet Provider
 
 ==
 Wireless Broadband, Local Calling and
 UNLIMITED Long Distance only $69!
 
 No Taxes, No Regulatory Fees, No Hassles
 
 FREE Site Survey: http://www.KyWiFi.com http://www.kywifi.com/
 ==
   
 

 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
*--- End of Original Message ---*


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-05 Thread Travis Johnson
The big problem I see is that DSL is full-duplex. It can be transmitting 
and receiving at the same time. Wireless is not.


Travis
Microserv

KyWiFi LLC wrote:


I'm noticing more and more WISP's selling their wireless
broadband service as DSL or Wireless DSL. I know
that 75% of the people who call our sales number have
a difficult time understanding what Wireless Broadband is.
They already know what DSL is and that is what the majority
of them ask for so I would be interested in hearing everyone's
opinions on the pros and cons of a WISP labeling their
wireless broadband service as DSL, wDSL or Wireless DSL
instead of Fixed Wireless, WiFI or Wireless Broadband.

If the masses are more familiar with the term DSL then I
think we would generate more sales leads by advertising
our (WISPs') broadband as DSL instead of Wireless
Broadband. I'm sure the local telco would just love to see
all of us selling DSL. Are there any legalities to this? Does
wireless broadband qualify as DSL or a form of DSL in the
eyes of the law? Is it legal for a WISP to sell their wireless
broadband service as DSL?


Sincerely,
Shannon D. Denniston, Co-Founder
KyWiFi, LLC - Mt. Sterling, Kentucky
http://www.KyWiFi.com
http://www.KyWiFiVoice.com
Phone: 859.274.4033
A Broadband Phone  Internet Provider

==
Wireless Broadband, Local Calling and
UNLIMITED Long Distance only $69!

No Taxes, No Regulatory Fees, No Hassles

FREE Site Survey: http://www.KyWiFi.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] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-05 Thread chris cooper
We conducted a few focus groups here.  Most of the attendees were in the
18-24 yr. age bracket.  It was amazing how many didn't identify with the
word broadband.  The words they responded to best were 'high speed
internet  Wireless was way down the list.  Too much confusion with
cellular.

That said, I think wireless will hold its own as a marketing term
eventually.  Wireless is the sexy new darling of the world. It will be
worth trading on the word eventually.  The other part of this is that we
are building brands as wireless providers, so it makes sense to keep
that in the mix until the world catches up.  In 95-96 I was out trying
to sell people on the words internet, email and website.  Those words
didn't register then but they are now a permanent part of the American
lexicon and in the American brain.  The word wireless and what it
represents will eventually do the same.

chris

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:13 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

Agreed excellent point (wireless scares and confuses people), except

Why associate your service with DSL, a low grade $39 a month service, as

advertized by Verizon?
Why not associate it with T1 or just Broadband, higher quality services?

If you associate it with DSL, then your are also associating it with the

same quality and price. They think you are ripping them off charging
$150 a 
month when they can get it for $39 a month down the street.  When in 
accuality you are saving them 70% off their T1 line.

Let me share a case that happened just yesterday.  I got a call for DSL,

they currently had voip and data on a T1, and they were looking for a
DSL 
line to transfer the Internet Data to, to free up bandwidth on their T1
for 
their VOIP.  It was a 15 minute close over the phone, since we had the
MTU 
building lit, and represented we could have their new circuit installed
the 
following day. I represented we were selling broadband, a T1
replacement. I 
made the mistake of leavingthe labeling of the contract heading as
Wireless 
Broadband Agreement. The customer saw Wireless and didn;t sign, and
asked 
to cancel order. I'm now likely going to win the client back, after most
of 
yesterday on the phone answering questions from everyone under the sun.
The 
problem was the customers computer consultant, had used Wireless in
Texas, 
and had nothing but troubles. He stated tons of Lightning related
electrical 
problem that disrupted service regularly. (It was a Wifi service he was 
using, there.) The question they asked me was, why is my service able to

compare againt T1 apposed to DSL, to justify the higher price? They
looked 
at it as a lower grade service.  My solution however, was a high end 
service. It was an Engineered 30 mbps TDD 4 mile link with a Direct path

from the building to my core fiber peering point. I even have fiber in
the 
building at $500, but don't use it, because the fiber has 4-5 hops to my

transit location compared to my wireless that is a direct shot and
bypasses 
many points of failure. I'll probably still get the business but after
much 
sales agrevation and providing a good number of references.

So its a valid point that Wireless does still scare some people. And
Poor 
quality Wireless providers ruin the rep for the good quality WISPs.  But
my 
bigger point is that some customers actually think DSL is more reliable
than 
an engineered wireless link used to replace Fiber and T1s.  So branding 
Wireless as DSL, does not helpthe industry, it lowers the value of what
we 
do.

I've been plaqued by this problem, as my company name is... RapidDSL.
It 
gets me the leads, but it also starts every sales call out with why I'm 
charging more than $50 a month for my service, that I generally get 
$150-$500 a month for.

We now market our service as Broadband period. It has made all the 
difference. We don't lie about using wireless, its plastered all over
our 
website. But why advertise something that just confuses everyone and
costs 
everyone time to sort out.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Rick Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband


 great point! :)

 Scott Reed wrote:

 Who says the L in  DSL must be Line?  Call it Digital Subsciber Link
and 
 it works for the customer and uses our normal language for the radio 
 connection.

 Scott Reed
 Owner
 NewWays
 Wireless Networking
 Network Design, Installation and Administration
 www.nwwnet.net http://www.nwwnet.net/


 *-- Original Message ---*
 From: Rick Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 00:39:48 -0400
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

  We find we can NOT sell our

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-05 Thread Tom DeReggi

Chris,

I agree with your finding.
But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or what was the 
finding?)
For example, its not only important to determine what terms the customer 
best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning they have for those 
terms that they identify with.


For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed Internet was 
the term that the consumer best identified with.
However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much with DialUP 
service as they do with Broadband.
And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL or Cable 
services.  Why do we want to create the image of offering commodity 
services, design for huge over subscription, low repair SLAs, and best 
effort?


Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as setting 
standards for quality?


We don't want to be identified as that.  We want to be something better.

Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi services to your 
clients, and you are striving to be a competitor to Cable and DSL quality, 
sure Brand the product as DSL, and its a good thing.  And please do so, so 
your wireless is not identified with what we offer, branding high quality 
fiber extension and T1 replacement services.


In your focus group did you get any results on their perception of quality 
that they associated with Cable and DSL or the term High Speed Internet?


Would you suggest branding your T1 or Fiber offerings as High Speed 
Internet, since customers best identify with that term?


Maybe we should be branding our service as Wi-Fiber. or Maybe Ethernet 
Internet Access  (of course like end users will know what Ethernet means.)


Its a tough call because if we called our service Fiber or T1 we'd most 
likely be liars based on their true definitions.

Nothing exists realting to quality for us to piggy back on.

All though Broadband may not be as well recognized, its doesn;t associate 
us with Telcos or Cable companies necessarilly.
Broadband is truthfully defined as a general term to cover any media type of 
delivery of Internet Access.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: chris cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:34 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband



We conducted a few focus groups here.  Most of the attendees were in the
18-24 yr. age bracket.  It was amazing how many didn't identify with the
word broadband.  The words they responded to best were 'high speed
internet  Wireless was way down the list.  Too much confusion with
cellular.

That said, I think wireless will hold its own as a marketing term
eventually.  Wireless is the sexy new darling of the world. It will be
worth trading on the word eventually.  The other part of this is that we
are building brands as wireless providers, so it makes sense to keep
that in the mix until the world catches up.  In 95-96 I was out trying
to sell people on the words internet, email and website.  Those words
didn't register then but they are now a permanent part of the American
lexicon and in the American brain.  The word wireless and what it
represents will eventually do the same.

chris

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:13 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

Agreed excellent point (wireless scares and confuses people), except

Why associate your service with DSL, a low grade $39 a month service, as

advertized by Verizon?
Why not associate it with T1 or just Broadband, higher quality services?

If you associate it with DSL, then your are also associating it with the

same quality and price. They think you are ripping them off charging
$150 a
month when they can get it for $39 a month down the street.  When in
accuality you are saving them 70% off their T1 line.

Let me share a case that happened just yesterday.  I got a call for DSL,

they currently had voip and data on a T1, and they were looking for a
DSL
line to transfer the Internet Data to, to free up bandwidth on their T1
for
their VOIP.  It was a 15 minute close over the phone, since we had the
MTU
building lit, and represented we could have their new circuit installed
the
following day. I represented we were selling broadband, a T1
replacement. I
made the mistake of leavingthe labeling of the contract heading as
Wireless
Broadband Agreement. The customer saw Wireless and didn;t sign, and
asked
to cancel order. I'm now likely going to win the client back, after most
of
yesterday on the phone answering questions from everyone under the sun.
The
problem was the customers computer consultant, had used Wireless in
Texas,
and had nothing but troubles. He stated tons of Lightning related
electrical
problem that disrupted service regularly. (It was a Wifi

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-05 Thread Scott Reed




Very well stated, Tom.  

I think there may reason to make some market distinction.  In the part of rural Indiana I live in, servicing residential customers  with wireless DSL is probably not bad marketing.  Selling it that way to most businesses would not be so beneficial, especially when doing the type of service you describe.  So, if a prospective residential asks about DSL, yeah, we do that, just without wires.  If a business wants true T1 or similar replacement, I am not going to sell them DSL, I am going to sell them a T1 replacement.

Marketing, marketing, it's all about the customer's perception, as I beleive Tom has pointed out in previous posts as well.

Scott Reed 


Owner 


NewWays 


Wireless Networking 


Network Design, Installation and Administration 


www.nwwnet.net 




-- Original Message 
---

From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] 


To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 


Sent: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 10:13:10 -0400 


Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband 



 Agreed excellent point (wireless scares and confuses people), 
except 
 
 

Why associate your service with DSL, a low grade $39 a month service, as  

 

advertized by Verizon? 
 

Why not associate it with T1 or just Broadband, higher quality services? 

 
 

If you associate it with DSL, then your are also associating it with the  

 

same quality and price. They think you are ripping them off charging $150 a  

 

month when they can get it for $39 a month down the street.  When in  

 

accuality you are saving them 70% off their T1 line. 
 
 

Let me share a case that happened just yesterday.  I got a call for DSL,  

 

they currently had voip and data on a T1, and they were looking for a DSL  

 

line to transfer the Internet Data to, to free up bandwidth on their T1 for  

 

their VOIP.  It was a 15 minute close over the phone, since we had the MTU  

 

building lit, and represented we could have their new circuit installed the  

 

following day. I represented we were selling broadband, a T1 replacement. I  

 

made the mistake of leavingthe labeling of the contract heading as 
Wireless  
 

Broadband Agreement. The customer saw Wireless and didn;t sign, and asked  

 

to cancel order. I'm now likely going to win the client back, after most of  

 

yesterday on the phone answering questions from everyone under the sun. The  

 

problem was the customers computer consultant, had used Wireless in Texas,  

 

and had nothing but troubles. He stated tons of Lightning related electrical  

 

problem that disrupted service regularly. (It was a Wifi service he was  

 

using, there.) The question they asked me was, why is my service able to  

 

compare againt T1 apposed to DSL, to justify the higher price? They looked  

 

at it as a lower grade service.  My solution however, was a high end  

 

service. It was an Engineered 30 mbps TDD 4 mile link with a Direct path  

 

from the building to my core fiber peering point. I even have fiber in the  

 

building at $500, but don't use it, because the fiber has 4-5 hops to my  

 

transit location compared to my wireless that is a direct shot and bypasses  

 

many points of failure. I'll probably still get the business but after much  

 

sales agrevation and providing a good number of references. 
 
 

So its a valid point that Wireless does still scare some people. And Poor  

 

quality Wireless providers ruin the rep for the good quality WISPs.  But my 
 
 

bigger point is that some customers actually think DSL is more reliable than  

 

an engineered wireless link used to replace Fiber and T1s.  So branding  

 

Wireless as DSL, does not helpthe industry, it lowers the value of what we  

 

do. 
 
 

I've been plaqued by this problem, as my company name is... 
RapidDSL.  It  
 

gets me the leads, but it also starts every sales call out with why I'm  

 

charging more than $50 a month for my service, that I generally get  
 

$150-$500 a month for. 
 
 

We now market our service as Broadband period. It has made all the  

 

difference. We don't lie about using wireless, its plastered all over our  

 

website. But why advertise something that just confuses everyone and costs  

 

everyone time to sort out. 
 
 

Tom DeReggi 
 

RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc 
 

IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband 
 
 

- Original Message -  
 

From: Rick Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 
 

Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 8:55 AM 
 

Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband 
 
 

 great point! :) 
 

 
 

 Scott Reed wrote: 
 

 
 

 Who says the L in  DSL must be Line?  Call it Digital 
Subsciber Link and  
 

 it works for the customer and uses our normal language for the radio  

 

 connection. 
 

 
 

 Scott Reed 
 

 Owner 
 

 NewWays 
 

 Wireless Networking 
 

 Network Design, Installation and Administration 
 

 www.nwwnet.net 
http://www.nwwnet.net

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-05 Thread Travis Johnson

Tom,

Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco 
service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless?


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Chris,

I agree with your finding.
But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or what 
was the finding?)
For example, its not only important to determine what terms the 
customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning they 
have for those terms that they identify with.


For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed Internet 
was the term that the consumer best identified with.
However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much with 
DialUP service as they do with Broadband.
And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL or 
Cable services.  Why do we want to create the image of offering 
commodity services, design for huge over subscription, low repair 
SLAs, and best effort?


Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as 
setting standards for quality?


We don't want to be identified as that.  We want to be something better.

Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi services to 
your clients, and you are striving to be a competitor to Cable and DSL 
quality, sure Brand the product as DSL, and its a good thing.  And 
please do so, so your wireless is not identified with what we offer, 
branding high quality fiber extension and T1 replacement services.


In your focus group did you get any results on their perception of 
quality that they associated with Cable and DSL or the term High 
Speed Internet?


Would you suggest branding your T1 or Fiber offerings as High Speed 
Internet, since customers best identify with that term?


Maybe we should be branding our service as Wi-Fiber. or Maybe 
Ethernet Internet Access  (of course like end users will know what 
Ethernet means.)


Its a tough call because if we called our service Fiber or T1 we'd 
most likely be liars based on their true definitions.

Nothing exists realting to quality for us to piggy back on.

All though Broadband may not be as well recognized, its doesn;t 
associate us with Telcos or Cable companies necessarilly.
Broadband is truthfully defined as a general term to cover any media 
type of delivery of Internet Access.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: chris cooper 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:34 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband



We conducted a few focus groups here.  Most of the attendees were in the
18-24 yr. age bracket.  It was amazing how many didn't identify with the
word broadband.  The words they responded to best were 'high speed
internet  Wireless was way down the list.  Too much confusion with
cellular.

That said, I think wireless will hold its own as a marketing term
eventually.  Wireless is the sexy new darling of the world. It will be
worth trading on the word eventually.  The other part of this is that we
are building brands as wireless providers, so it makes sense to keep
that in the mix until the world catches up.  In 95-96 I was out trying
to sell people on the words internet, email and website.  Those words
didn't register then but they are now a permanent part of the American
lexicon and in the American brain.  The word wireless and what it
represents will eventually do the same.

chris

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:13 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

Agreed excellent point (wireless scares and confuses people), except

Why associate your service with DSL, a low grade $39 a month service, as

advertized by Verizon?
Why not associate it with T1 or just Broadband, higher quality services?

If you associate it with DSL, then your are also associating it with the

same quality and price. They think you are ripping them off charging
$150 a
month when they can get it for $39 a month down the street.  When in
accuality you are saving them 70% off their T1 line.

Let me share a case that happened just yesterday.  I got a call for DSL,

they currently had voip and data on a T1, and they were looking for a
DSL
line to transfer the Internet Data to, to free up bandwidth on their T1
for
their VOIP.  It was a 15 minute close over the phone, since we had the
MTU
building lit, and represented we could have their new circuit installed
the
following day. I represented we were selling broadband, a T1
replacement. I
made the mistake of leavingthe labeling of the contract heading as
Wireless
Broadband Agreement. The customer saw Wireless and didn;t sign, and
asked
to cancel order. I'm now likely going to win the client back, after most
of
yesterday on the phone answering questions from everyone under the sun.
The
problem was the customers computer

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-05 Thread Matt Liotta
3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is equivalent to 
1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD radios can have dynamic time 
division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex link superior IMHO.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:


Tom,

Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco 
service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless?


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Chris,

I agree with your finding.
But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or what 
was the finding?)
For example, its not only important to determine what terms the 
customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning 
they have for those terms that they identify with.


For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed 
Internet was the term that the consumer best identified with.
However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much with 
DialUP service as they do with Broadband.
And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL or 
Cable services.  Why do we want to create the image of offering 
commodity services, design for huge over subscription, low repair 
SLAs, and best effort?


Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as 
setting standards for quality?


We don't want to be identified as that.  We want to be something better.

Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi services to 
your clients, and you are striving to be a competitor to Cable and 
DSL quality, sure Brand the product as DSL, and its a good thing.  
And please do so, so your wireless is not identified with what we 
offer, branding high quality fiber extension and T1 replacement 
services.


In your focus group did you get any results on their perception of 
quality that they associated with Cable and DSL or the term High 
Speed Internet?


Would you suggest branding your T1 or Fiber offerings as High Speed 
Internet, since customers best identify with that term?


Maybe we should be branding our service as Wi-Fiber. or Maybe 
Ethernet Internet Access  (of course like end users will know what 
Ethernet means.)


Its a tough call because if we called our service Fiber or T1 
we'd most likely be liars based on their true definitions.

Nothing exists realting to quality for us to piggy back on.

All though Broadband may not be as well recognized, its doesn;t 
associate us with Telcos or Cable companies necessarilly.
Broadband is truthfully defined as a general term to cover any media 
type of delivery of Internet Access.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: chris cooper 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:34 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband


We conducted a few focus groups here.  Most of the attendees were in 
the
18-24 yr. age bracket.  It was amazing how many didn't identify with 
the

word broadband.  The words they responded to best were 'high speed
internet  Wireless was way down the list.  Too much confusion with
cellular.

That said, I think wireless will hold its own as a marketing term
eventually.  Wireless is the sexy new darling of the world. It will be
worth trading on the word eventually.  The other part of this is 
that we

are building brands as wireless providers, so it makes sense to keep
that in the mix until the world catches up.  In 95-96 I was out trying
to sell people on the words internet, email and website.  Those words
didn't register then but they are now a permanent part of the American
lexicon and in the American brain.  The word wireless and what it
represents will eventually do the same.

chris

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:13 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

Agreed excellent point (wireless scares and confuses people), 
except


Why associate your service with DSL, a low grade $39 a month 
service, as


advertized by Verizon?
Why not associate it with T1 or just Broadband, higher quality 
services?


If you associate it with DSL, then your are also associating it with 
the


same quality and price. They think you are ripping them off charging
$150 a
month when they can get it for $39 a month down the street.  When in
accuality you are saving them 70% off their T1 line.

Let me share a case that happened just yesterday.  I got a call for 
DSL,


they currently had voip and data on a T1, and they were looking for a
DSL
line to transfer the Internet Data to, to free up bandwidth on their T1
for
their VOIP.  It was a 15 minute close over the phone, since we had the
MTU
building lit, and represented we could have their new circuit installed
the
following day. I represented we were selling broadband, a T1
replacement. I
made the mistake of leavingthe labeling of the contract heading as
Wireless
Broadband Agreement

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-05 Thread Travis Johnson

Matt,

This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps upload, 
it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic, music sharing, 
worms, etc.). With a wireless connection, even at 3.0Mbps, a 1.5Mbps 
upload will bring it almost to a stop.


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is equivalent to 
1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD radios can have dynamic 
time division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex link superior IMHO.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:


Tom,

Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco 
service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless?


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Chris,

I agree with your finding.
But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or what 
was the finding?)
For example, its not only important to determine what terms the 
customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning 
they have for those terms that they identify with.


For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed 
Internet was the term that the consumer best identified with.
However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much with 
DialUP service as they do with Broadband.
And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL or 
Cable services.  Why do we want to create the image of offering 
commodity services, design for huge over subscription, low repair 
SLAs, and best effort?


Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as 
setting standards for quality?


We don't want to be identified as that.  We want to be something 
better.


Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi services to 
your clients, and you are striving to be a competitor to Cable and 
DSL quality, sure Brand the product as DSL, and its a good thing.  
And please do so, so your wireless is not identified with what we 
offer, branding high quality fiber extension and T1 replacement 
services.


In your focus group did you get any results on their perception of 
quality that they associated with Cable and DSL or the term High 
Speed Internet?


Would you suggest branding your T1 or Fiber offerings as High Speed 
Internet, since customers best identify with that term?


Maybe we should be branding our service as Wi-Fiber. or Maybe 
Ethernet Internet Access  (of course like end users will know what 
Ethernet means.)


Its a tough call because if we called our service Fiber or T1 
we'd most likely be liars based on their true definitions.

Nothing exists realting to quality for us to piggy back on.

All though Broadband may not be as well recognized, its doesn;t 
associate us with Telcos or Cable companies necessarilly.
Broadband is truthfully defined as a general term to cover any media 
type of delivery of Internet Access.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: chris cooper 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:34 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband


We conducted a few focus groups here.  Most of the attendees were 
in the
18-24 yr. age bracket.  It was amazing how many didn't identify 
with the

word broadband.  The words they responded to best were 'high speed
internet  Wireless was way down the list.  Too much confusion with
cellular.

That said, I think wireless will hold its own as a marketing term
eventually.  Wireless is the sexy new darling of the world. It will be
worth trading on the word eventually.  The other part of this is 
that we

are building brands as wireless providers, so it makes sense to keep
that in the mix until the world catches up.  In 95-96 I was out trying
to sell people on the words internet, email and website.  Those words
didn't register then but they are now a permanent part of the American
lexicon and in the American brain.  The word wireless and what it
represents will eventually do the same.

chris

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

Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:13 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

Agreed excellent point (wireless scares and confuses people), 
except


Why associate your service with DSL, a low grade $39 a month 
service, as


advertized by Verizon?
Why not associate it with T1 or just Broadband, higher quality 
services?


If you associate it with DSL, then your are also associating it 
with the


same quality and price. They think you are ripping them off charging
$150 a
month when they can get it for $39 a month down the street.  When in
accuality you are saving them 70% off their T1 line.

Let me share a case that happened just yesterday.  I got a call for 
DSL,


they currently had voip and data on a T1, and they were looking for a
DSL
line to transfer the Internet Data to, to free up bandwidth on 
their T1

for
their VOIP

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-05 Thread Matt Liotta
It is true. Basic logic says that 3Mbps divided in half means you can 
get 1.5Mbps. Further, find any device that can have strict time division 
partitioning set and test it yourself.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:


Matt,

This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps upload, 
it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic, music sharing, 
worms, etc.). With a wireless connection, even at 3.0Mbps, a 1.5Mbps 
upload will bring it almost to a stop.


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is equivalent to 
1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD radios can have dynamic 
time division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex link superior IMHO.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:


Tom,

Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco 
service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless?


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Chris,

I agree with your finding.
But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or 
what was the finding?)
For example, its not only important to determine what terms the 
customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning 
they have for those terms that they identify with.


For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed 
Internet was the term that the consumer best identified with.
However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much with 
DialUP service as they do with Broadband.
And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL or 
Cable services.  Why do we want to create the image of offering 
commodity services, design for huge over subscription, low repair 
SLAs, and best effort?


Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as 
setting standards for quality?


We don't want to be identified as that.  We want to be something 
better.


Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi services 
to your clients, and you are striving to be a competitor to Cable 
and DSL quality, sure Brand the product as DSL, and its a good 
thing.  And please do so, so your wireless is not identified with 
what we offer, branding high quality fiber extension and T1 
replacement services.


In your focus group did you get any results on their perception of 
quality that they associated with Cable and DSL or the term High 
Speed Internet?


Would you suggest branding your T1 or Fiber offerings as High 
Speed Internet, since customers best identify with that term?


Maybe we should be branding our service as Wi-Fiber. or Maybe 
Ethernet Internet Access  (of course like end users will know 
what Ethernet means.)


Its a tough call because if we called our service Fiber or T1 
we'd most likely be liars based on their true definitions.

Nothing exists realting to quality for us to piggy back on.

All though Broadband may not be as well recognized, its doesn;t 
associate us with Telcos or Cable companies necessarilly.
Broadband is truthfully defined as a general term to cover any 
media type of delivery of Internet Access.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: chris cooper 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:34 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband


We conducted a few focus groups here.  Most of the attendees were 
in the
18-24 yr. age bracket.  It was amazing how many didn't identify 
with the

word broadband.  The words they responded to best were 'high speed
internet  Wireless was way down the list.  Too much confusion with
cellular.

That said, I think wireless will hold its own as a marketing term
eventually.  Wireless is the sexy new darling of the world. It 
will be
worth trading on the word eventually.  The other part of this is 
that we

are building brands as wireless providers, so it makes sense to keep
that in the mix until the world catches up.  In 95-96 I was out 
trying

to sell people on the words internet, email and website.  Those words
didn't register then but they are now a permanent part of the 
American

lexicon and in the American brain.  The word wireless and what it
represents will eventually do the same.

chris

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

Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:13 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

Agreed excellent point (wireless scares and confuses people), 
except


Why associate your service with DSL, a low grade $39 a month 
service, as


advertized by Verizon?
Why not associate it with T1 or just Broadband, higher quality 
services?


If you associate it with DSL, then your are also associating it 
with the


same quality and price. They think you are ripping them off charging
$150 a
month when they can get it for $39 a month down the street.  When in
accuality you are saving them 70% off their T1 line.

Let me share a case

RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-05 Thread Charles Wu
Higher ARPU WISPs in the business are selling their services as WiMAX

-Charles

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



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of KyWiFi LLC
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 10:56 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband


I'm noticing more and more WISP's selling their wireless broadband service
as DSL or Wireless DSL. I know that 75% of the people who call our sales
number have a difficult time understanding what Wireless Broadband is. They
already know what DSL is and that is what the majority of them ask for so I
would be interested in hearing everyone's opinions on the pros and cons of a
WISP labeling their wireless broadband service as DSL, wDSL or Wireless
DSL instead of Fixed Wireless, WiFI or Wireless Broadband.

If the masses are more familiar with the term DSL then I
think we would generate more sales leads by advertising
our (WISPs') broadband as DSL instead of Wireless
Broadband. I'm sure the local telco would just love to see
all of us selling DSL. Are there any legalities to this? Does wireless
broadband qualify as DSL or a form of DSL in the eyes of the law? Is it
legal for a WISP to sell their wireless broadband service as DSL?


Sincerely,
Shannon D. Denniston, Co-Founder
KyWiFi, LLC - Mt. Sterling, Kentucky
http://www.KyWiFi.com
http://www.KyWiFiVoice.com
Phone: 859.274.4033
A Broadband Phone  Internet Provider

==
Wireless Broadband, Local Calling and
UNLIMITED Long Distance only $69!

No Taxes, No Regulatory Fees, No Hassles

FREE Site Survey: http://www.KyWiFi.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] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-05 Thread Charles Wu
snip
Maybe we should be branding our service as Wi-Fiber. or Maybe Ethernet 
Internet Access  (of course like end users will know what Ethernet means.)
/snip

Spend  trying to build a new brand around Wi-Fiber or just ride Intel /
WiMAX Forum's Marketing machine...

Here's the thing, chances are, whatever name you choose to brand this
technology, the customer will probably be ignorant (it's still a new
technology, eh?)

However, when talking to them, and saying something like just google WiMAX
to learn about our technology -- they'll see hundreds (if not thousands) of
entries from reputable business magazines (from INC to Business Week to
Fortune) all talking about how WiMAX is better than WiFi  Cellular and how
it can compete against T1s, they'll go ah-hah

Not to be offensive here, but most WISPs don't know @[EMAIL PROTECTED] about 
sales 
marketing - Just remember, it takes about 8 touches to effectively sell a
medium ARPU ($200-600 / month) data account

-Charles

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.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] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-05 Thread Peter R.

Tom DeReggi wrote:

I've been plaqued by this problem, as my company name is... 
RapidDSL.  It gets me the leads, but it also starts every sales call 
out with why I'm charging more than $50 a month for my service, that I 
generally get $150-$500 a month for. 


I'm seeing this company name as a problem more and more.
If Wi-Fi or DSL is in your name, people's perception of you is different.
Why would they buy a T1 or 10MB circuit from a company that specializes 
in DSL?


Your name is your brand.
Your brand only has room for one perception in the customers mind.

It is very easy to get a DBA or Fictious Name registered with the 
Secretary of your State.
So while your company is RapidDSL it could be dba RapidData, 
RapidPacket, or RapidBB.


Regards,

Peter
RAD-INFO, Inc.

BTW, the newsletter is out:
http://4isps.com/newsletter.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] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-05 Thread Tom DeReggi

We don't, but there is no need to.

3 mbps half duplex = 1.5 mbps full duplex.
(Actually bettter, because when upload speed not used, its there to be used 
for high speeds in the other direction.)


Our router bandwidth management allows setting speed in both directions 
(using HTB).


Its one marketing trick that works to our advantage.
We advertise symetrical, not simultaneous Full Duplex.

That means we have same speed both directions, not top speed in both 
directions at the same time.

So a client pushing 2 mbps down and 1 mbps up, would equal a 3 mbps link.
We can advertise speeds up to the max speed someone can acheive in a 
specific direction.
Because most clients do not use equal speed in both direction, nuch of their 
Full Duplex bandwidth just goes wasted and unused on T1s.


So 3 mbps is perceived as twice the speed than their T1 for those that don;t 
catch the difference between full and half duplex. And a great replacement 
for their T1.  Those that do understand the difference, well, we are still 
offering equivellent capacity.


What also works to our advantage is that T1 providers also generally don't 
offer guaranteed bandwidth either. A T1 might be as low as $500 a month, but 
if the buy a true MCI guaranteed bandwidth circuit, paying 95%tile, they'd 
easilly be paying over $1000 buck for the T1 link. So technically 
competitor's T1s are MIR bandwidth under their SLA. So we also spec our 
product at MIR.  We stay away from any term like Best Effort associated with 
commodity services like DSL.


The second we take out local loop costs, we can always be more cost 
effective, with out sacrificing quality on the link at the back end, because 
we actually ahve a lower front end cost.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband



Tom,

Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco service? 
How are you doing full-duplex with wireless?


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Chris,

I agree with your finding.
But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or what was 
the finding?)
For example, its not only important to determine what terms the customer 
best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning they have for 
those terms that they identify with.


For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed Internet 
was the term that the consumer best identified with.
However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much with DialUP 
service as they do with Broadband.
And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL or Cable 
services.  Why do we want to create the image of offering commodity 
services, design for huge over subscription, low repair SLAs, and best 
effort?


Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as setting 
standards for quality?


We don't want to be identified as that.  We want to be something better.

Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi services to your 
clients, and you are striving to be a competitor to Cable and DSL 
quality, sure Brand the product as DSL, and its a good thing.  And please 
do so, so your wireless is not identified with what we offer, branding 
high quality fiber extension and T1 replacement services.


In your focus group did you get any results on their perception of 
quality that they associated with Cable and DSL or the term High Speed 
Internet?


Would you suggest branding your T1 or Fiber offerings as High Speed 
Internet, since customers best identify with that term?


Maybe we should be branding our service as Wi-Fiber. or Maybe Ethernet 
Internet Access  (of course like end users will know what Ethernet 
means.)


Its a tough call because if we called our service Fiber or T1 we'd 
most likely be liars based on their true definitions.

Nothing exists realting to quality for us to piggy back on.

All though Broadband may not be as well recognized, its doesn;t 
associate us with Telcos or Cable companies necessarilly.
Broadband is truthfully defined as a general term to cover any media type 
of delivery of Internet Access.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: chris cooper 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:34 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband



We conducted a few focus groups here.  Most of the attendees were in the
18-24 yr. age bracket.  It was amazing how many didn't identify with the
word broadband.  The words they responded to best were 'high speed
internet  Wireless was way down the list.  Too much confusion with
cellular.

That said, I think wireless will hold its own as a marketing term
eventually.  Wireless is the sexy new darling of the world

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-05 Thread Tom DeReggi

Travis,

We do not see that on our network.
One provider's usage rarely has an effect on the others, that can be 
significantly noticed.
When bandwidth management is done at the first hop at every cell site, this 
does not happen.

I'm referring to using Trango 5830s.

You are however bringing up the difference between time syncronized circuit 
based apposed to Ethernet products.
With Ethernet, there is always a scale up and scale down of speed, based on 
the TCP protocol when limits are reached, but this has nothing to do with 
half or full duplex. The same degregation using Ethernet applies to traffic 
going in the same direction.
For Ethernet to be a viable repalcement for T1, it must be of greater 
capacity.


The second thing, distinguishing the difference between T1 and DSL classe, 
and which Wireless compares to, is more than just Speed and Duplex.


SLAs,  Repair Time, Network support, Peak Speed, etc.

the idea is that unused bandwdith can never be gone back to regain use of. 
So offering 3 mbps speed allows network usage to be delivered sooner, so 
bandwidth is free for upcomming traffic, therefore making more traffic 
available for that upcomming need. Higher capacity allows more efficient use 
of the bandwdith.  So we find that our customers tend to recognize a 
perception of much better speed on our wireless links than our T1 links, 
because they have fewer congestion times.


The secret is for the bandwdith management to be provided equally on a 
PRIORITY basis.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband



Matt,

This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps upload, it 
has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic, music sharing, worms, 
etc.). With a wireless connection, even at 3.0Mbps, a 1.5Mbps upload will 
bring it almost to a stop.


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is equivalent to 
1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD radios can have dynamic time 
division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex link superior IMHO.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:


Tom,

Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco 
service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless?


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Chris,

I agree with your finding.
But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or what 
was the finding?)
For example, its not only important to determine what terms the 
customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning they 
have for those terms that they identify with.


For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed Internet 
was the term that the consumer best identified with.
However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much with DialUP 
service as they do with Broadband.
And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL or 
Cable services.  Why do we want to create the image of offering 
commodity services, design for huge over subscription, low repair SLAs, 
and best effort?


Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as setting 
standards for quality?


We don't want to be identified as that.  We want to be something 
better.


Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi services to 
your clients, and you are striving to be a competitor to Cable and DSL 
quality, sure Brand the product as DSL, and its a good thing.  And 
please do so, so your wireless is not identified with what we offer, 
branding high quality fiber extension and T1 replacement services.


In your focus group did you get any results on their perception of 
quality that they associated with Cable and DSL or the term High Speed 
Internet?


Would you suggest branding your T1 or Fiber offerings as High Speed 
Internet, since customers best identify with that term?


Maybe we should be branding our service as Wi-Fiber. or Maybe 
Ethernet Internet Access  (of course like end users will know what 
Ethernet means.)


Its a tough call because if we called our service Fiber or T1 we'd 
most likely be liars based on their true definitions.

Nothing exists realting to quality for us to piggy back on.

All though Broadband may not be as well recognized, its doesn;t 
associate us with Telcos or Cable companies necessarilly.
Broadband is truthfully defined as a general term to cover any media 
type of delivery of Internet Access.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: chris cooper 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:34 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband


We conducted a few focus groups here.  Most of the attendees were in 
the
18-24 yr. age bracket

RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-05 Thread danlist
On a good system like canopy or polling (nstream or turbocell) I  have been able
to run a FDX style link, downloading 1.5Mbps while uploading 1.5Mbps, using
Nstream I have done 15Mbps pseudo-fdx


Nstream2 allows a true FDX channel but I believe only PTP

Dan Metcalf
Wireless Broadband Systems
www.wbisp.com
781-566-2053 ext 6201
1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
support: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
 Of Matt Liotta
 Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:22 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
 
 It is true. Basic logic says that 3Mbps divided in half means you can
 get 1.5Mbps. Further, find any device that can have strict time division
 partitioning set and test it yourself.
 
 -Matt
 
 Travis Johnson wrote:
 
  Matt,
 
  This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps upload,
  it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic, music sharing,
  worms, etc.). With a wireless connection, even at 3.0Mbps, a 1.5Mbps
  upload will bring it almost to a stop.
 
  Travis
  Microserv
 
  Matt Liotta wrote:
 
  3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is equivalent to
  1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD radios can have dynamic
  time division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex link superior IMHO.
 
  -Matt
 
  Travis Johnson wrote:
 
  Tom,
 
  Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco
  service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless?
 
  Travis
  Microserv
 
  Tom DeReggi wrote:
 
  Chris,
 
  I agree with your finding.
  But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or
  what was the finding?)
  For example, its not only important to determine what terms the
  customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning
  they have for those terms that they identify with.
 
  For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed
  Internet was the term that the consumer best identified with.
  However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much with
  DialUP service as they do with Broadband.
  And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL or
  Cable services.  Why do we want to create the image of offering
  commodity services, design for huge over subscription, low repair
  SLAs, and best effort?
 
  Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as
  setting standards for quality?
 
  We don't want to be identified as that.  We want to be something
  better.
 
  Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi services
  to your clients, and you are striving to be a competitor to Cable
  and DSL quality, sure Brand the product as DSL, and its a good
  thing.  And please do so, so your wireless is not identified with
  what we offer, branding high quality fiber extension and T1
  replacement services.
 
  In your focus group did you get any results on their perception of
  quality that they associated with Cable and DSL or the term High
  Speed Internet?
 
  Would you suggest branding your T1 or Fiber offerings as High
  Speed Internet, since customers best identify with that term?
 
  Maybe we should be branding our service as Wi-Fiber. or Maybe
  Ethernet Internet Access  (of course like end users will know
  what Ethernet means.)
 
  Its a tough call because if we called our service Fiber or T1
  we'd most likely be liars based on their true definitions.
  Nothing exists realting to quality for us to piggy back on.
 
  All though Broadband may not be as well recognized, its doesn;t
  associate us with Telcos or Cable companies necessarilly.
  Broadband is truthfully defined as a general term to cover any
  media type of delivery of Internet Access.
 
  Tom DeReggi
  RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
  IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
 
 
  - Original Message - From: chris cooper
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:34 AM
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
 
 
  We conducted a few focus groups here.  Most of the attendees were
  in the
  18-24 yr. age bracket.  It was amazing how many didn't identify
  with the
  word broadband.  The words they responded to best were 'high speed
  internet  Wireless was way down the list.  Too much confusion with
  cellular.
 
  That said, I think wireless will hold its own as a marketing term
  eventually.  Wireless is the sexy new darling of the world. It
  will be
  worth trading on the word eventually.  The other part of this is
  that we
  are building brands as wireless providers, so it makes sense to keep
  that in the mix until the world catches up.  In 95-96 I was out
  trying
  to sell people on the words internet, email and website.  Those words
  didn't register then but they are now a permanent part of the
  American
  lexicon and in the American brain.  The word wireless and what it
  represents will eventually do

RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-05 Thread danlist
Our noc is connected w/ a 5.8Ghz PTP Link.  We do streaming audio from that NOC
while also providing internet access.. During the day the streaming audio hits
over 2Mbps and during that same time we pulling 2Mbps to 4Mbps from the
internet.

The system is definitely HDX but has no problem sending and receiving data
providing that there is capacity on the radio link, it just switch's rx/tx so
fast

Dan Metcalf
Wireless Broadband Systems
www.wbisp.com
781-566-2053 ext 6201
1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
support: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
 Of Travis Johnson
 Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 4:46 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
 
 Hi,
 
 If someone wants to setup whatever wireless network they would like to
 test and then let me know, I'll gladly send you a CD you can pop in a
 laptop and connect at the CPE side. It will dish out 4,000pps and
 1.5Mbps of upload traffic. Then you can go ahead and try and download
 something at the same time across that same link using the same CPE
 connection.
 
 If it were a telco-T1, the download would not even notice the upload.
 Wireless, being a half-duplex medium, does not compare to a full-duplex
 line. Licensed and true microwave systems are a different story.
 
 Travis
 Microserv
 
 Tom DeReggi wrote:
 
  Travis,
 
  We do not see that on our network.
  One provider's usage rarely has an effect on the others, that can be
  significantly noticed.
  When bandwidth management is done at the first hop at every cell site,
  this does not happen.
  I'm referring to using Trango 5830s.
 
  You are however bringing up the difference between time syncronized
  circuit based apposed to Ethernet products.
  With Ethernet, there is always a scale up and scale down of speed,
  based on the TCP protocol when limits are reached, but this has
  nothing to do with half or full duplex. The same degregation using
  Ethernet applies to traffic going in the same direction.
  For Ethernet to be a viable repalcement for T1, it must be of greater
  capacity.
 
  The second thing, distinguishing the difference between T1 and DSL
  classe, and which Wireless compares to, is more than just Speed and
  Duplex.
 
  SLAs,  Repair Time, Network support, Peak Speed, etc.
 
  the idea is that unused bandwdith can never be gone back to regain use
  of. So offering 3 mbps speed allows network usage to be delivered
  sooner, so bandwidth is free for upcomming traffic, therefore making
  more traffic available for that upcomming need. Higher capacity allows
  more efficient use of the bandwdith.  So we find that our customers
  tend to recognize a perception of much better speed on our wireless
  links than our T1 links, because they have fewer congestion times.
 
  The secret is for the bandwdith management to be provided equally on a
  PRIORITY basis.
 
  Tom DeReggi
  RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
  IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
 
 
  - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:12 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
 
 
  Matt,
 
  This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps
  upload, it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic, music
  sharing, worms, etc.). With a wireless connection, even at 3.0Mbps, a
  1.5Mbps upload will bring it almost to a stop.
 
  Travis
  Microserv
 
  Matt Liotta wrote:
 
  3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is equivalent to
  1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD radios can have dynamic
  time division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex link superior IMHO.
 
  -Matt
 
  Travis Johnson wrote:
 
  Tom,
 
  Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco
  service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless?
 
  Travis
  Microserv
 
  Tom DeReggi wrote:
 
  Chris,
 
  I agree with your finding.
  But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or
  what was the finding?)
  For example, its not only important to determine what terms the
  customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning
  they have for those terms that they identify with.
 
  For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed
  Internet was the term that the consumer best identified with.
  However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much with
  DialUP service as they do with Broadband.
  And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL or
  Cable services.  Why do we want to create the image of offering
  commodity services, design for huge over subscription, low repair
  SLAs, and best effort?
 
  Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as
  setting standards for quality?
 
  We don't want to be identified as that.  We want to be something
  better.
 
  Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-05 Thread Tom DeReggi

Travis,

I'd love to perform your test.
Send me the CD.
Understanding that I will provision the customer at 3 mbps on our first hop 
router, using Trango 10mbps PtMP radio link, and that your CD test will 
generate 1500mbps of data transfer.


There are three seperate issues here. 1) One user's connection able to 
effect another user's connection, and 2) On one particular link, their 
upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under normal opperation 
within acceptable use policy, and 3) On one particular link, their upload 
traffic effecting their download traffic, under a Denial of Service 
situation.


With any type of broadband, if the capacity of a link is saturated, it 
results in packet loss and performance loss for the individual's connection. 
Its up to the end user to protect against violation of acceptable use policy 
like viruses that deliver abnormal PPS, or any queueing needed to allow fair 
priority of data type on the LAN side of the link. These problems can also 
all be solved with a feature rich client side router before plugging to our 
Broadband, regardless of the Duplex of our link.  In other words, The same 
performance problems will result on a full Duplex link, if one direction 
gets saturated, and that same direction traffic will result in packet loss, 
and all communication generally requires some communication in each of the 
direction for traffic to flow in one direction.  So where the problem may be 
worse with Half Duplex, the problem still exists in some capacity with Full 
Duplex. I'd argue that its possible to generate enough pps on a Full Duplex 
Link in one direction, that will overload the processing power of the radio 
CPU, and the other direction still getting horrible performance even with no 
traffic passing in that other direction even though Full Duplex, because no 
CPU time is available for it. Unless each direction has its own CPU, which 
is not likely.  This is an issue of whether the radio used can handle the 
number of PPS sent to it in high DOS situations.


I'd also argue under this situation 4000 pps 1500 mbps, that the customer's 
use of the circuit in any capacity when a DOS of that type was happening, 
would be not possible, and justify immediate tech action to resolve, 
regardless of whether one direction of traffic was usable.  I;ve never met a 
company where having one direction traffic only was acceptable or tolerable.


You did however hit on an important clarification. A half duplex link can 
not distinguish on its own wether upload or download traffic at a given 
moment is priority or more important to the subscriber. When there is a 
large demand for legitimate broadband, why would the data in one direction 
be any more priority than the other, when capacity is reached? Either way 
the customer is compromised in throughout needs one direction or another. 
Doesn't it really mean that the customer needs more total bandwidth? Is it 
any more important that mail was sent and not received?  Full Duplex is one 
way for a customer to solve that problem, and reserve bandwdith in one 
direction. But does that really solve the problem? Maybe if the circuit's 
intended use is for 100% VOIP a symetrical application.  But not many 
circuits are used for that purpose.  And if I really wanted to, I can set my 
bandwdith management to be seperate for upload and download, and immulate a 
Full Duplex connection, over the half duplex link. But what it really says 
to me is the importance that customers have front end queuing / IP 
prioritization when using bi-directional sensitive applications such as 
VOIP.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband



Hi,

If someone wants to setup whatever wireless network they would like to 
test and then let me know, I'll gladly send you a CD you can pop in a 
laptop and connect at the CPE side. It will dish out 4,000pps and 1.5Mbps 
of upload traffic. Then you can go ahead and try and download something at 
the same time across that same link using the same CPE connection.


If it were a telco-T1, the download would not even notice the upload. 
Wireless, being a half-duplex medium, does not compare to a full-duplex 
line. Licensed and true microwave systems are a different story.


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Travis,

We do not see that on our network.
One provider's usage rarely has an effect on the others, that can be 
significantly noticed.
When bandwidth management is done at the first hop at every cell site, 
this does not happen.

I'm referring to using Trango 5830s.

You are however bringing up the difference between time syncronized 
circuit based apposed to Ethernet products.
With Ethernet, there is always a scale up and scale down of speed, based 
on the TCP protocol

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-04 Thread Rick Smith

We find we can NOT sell our service as Wireless Broadband

As soon as we market it to customers as DSL or just plain
High Speed Internet, we start scoring.

Too many in this area have been educated against Open WIFI
being BAD...

The cable we install to the radio is a line, right ?
It carries digital signals, right ?
It allows our customer to become a subscriber, right ?

DSL... ;)

KyWiFi LLC wrote:


I'm noticing more and more WISP's selling their wireless
broadband service as DSL or Wireless DSL. I know
that 75% of the people who call our sales number have
a difficult time understanding what Wireless Broadband is.
They already know what DSL is and that is what the majority
of them ask for so I would be interested in hearing everyone's
opinions on the pros and cons of a WISP labeling their
wireless broadband service as DSL, wDSL or Wireless DSL
instead of Fixed Wireless, WiFI or Wireless Broadband.

If the masses are more familiar with the term DSL then I
think we would generate more sales leads by advertising
our (WISPs') broadband as DSL instead of Wireless
Broadband. I'm sure the local telco would just love to see
all of us selling DSL. Are there any legalities to this? Does
wireless broadband qualify as DSL or a form of DSL in the
eyes of the law? Is it legal for a WISP to sell their wireless
broadband service as DSL?


Sincerely,
Shannon D. Denniston, Co-Founder
KyWiFi, LLC - Mt. Sterling, Kentucky
http://www.KyWiFi.com
http://www.KyWiFiVoice.com
Phone: 859.274.4033
A Broadband Phone  Internet Provider

==
Wireless Broadband, Local Calling and
UNLIMITED Long Distance only $69!

No Taxes, No Regulatory Fees, No Hassles

FREE Site Survey: http://www.KyWiFi.com
==
 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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