Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

2008-12-16 Thread Dustin Jurman
They both have Ethernet ports! 

DSJ

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 4:16 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

I was told that Redlines's WiMax solution would be interoperable - but
that was a salesmen speaking.

On 12/14/08, Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com wrote:
 Well its uses Wimax MAC, but ists not Wimax Forum Certified so the
 manufactures don't have to comply with interoperability


 Gino A. Villarini
 g...@aeronetpr.com
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of George Rogato
 Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 1:34 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

 So this stuff then is not really WiMAX, it;s just another proprietary
 system, right?

 George

 Blair Davis wrote:
 rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote:
 Don't I remember that there was a lot of hype about interoperability?

 That's why many of us still stick to the old a/b/g stuff.   We hate
 the idea
 of getting orphaned.


 Right on!  Some of us HAVE been orphaned!


 --
 --



 --
 --
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 --
 --

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


 
 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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





 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/




 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



-- 
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
--- Henry Spencer




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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








WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 update

2008-12-16 Thread Milton Calnek
Yah... to reduce latency, keep the base at a frame duration of 5ms.

The 1/4 cyclic prefix will help if you're getting dropped packets, but
1/8 gives more throughout.

Travis: give us a call and we'll help you sort this out.

Thanks.

Travis Johnson wrote:
 Actually the ping times went to 60ms with those changes.
 
 Travis
 
 
 John Scrivner wrote: 
 
   Switch to 1/4 carrier and 10 ms. I bet it clears up.
   Scriv
   
   

-- 
Milton Calnek BSc
Manager Wireless Application Engineering Support
milton.cal...@vecima.com
1-306-955-7075 x4687
1-306-280-9818




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

2008-12-15 Thread Thomas P. Galla
I can say for the Tranzeo weather proofing rj45 setup is ok.. I haven't had any 
problems with it seeping water. We have been using these for 4 years (note 
I am knocking on wood right now)  :)


Thomas P Galla
t...@bluegrass.net
BluegrassNet
Voice (502) 589.INET [4638]
Fax 502-315-0581
321 East Breckinridge St
Louisville KY 40203


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 1:36 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

Hi,

We received our Vecima trial kit (one AP and five CPE) on Thursday afternoon. 
We have not yet put it on a tower, as there were several issues with their 
software on the AP... but here's some info thus far:

The base station is quite large. It measures approximately 14 inches tall x 8 
inches wide x 6 inches thick. It weighs about 25 pounds (seriously). It has an 
RJ-45 ethernet connector and an N-male connector on the bottom. (I was lead to 
believe they had omni, 90 degree, 120 degree and connectorized versions, and I 
requested the 120 unit, but instead got this with an LMR jumper and an MTI 120 
antenna).

We began by getting into the AP and making some normal changes (downlink was 
set to 50%, so we changed it to 70%). Also the center frequency was set to 
3.410 so we changed that to 3.650. We also changed to 7mhz channel size. We 
then applied and rebooted... and then we could no longer get into the radio 
configuration page (where we had just made all those changes). So we did a 
factory reset and tried again. Same thing. We opened a trouble ticket with 
Vecima the next morning, and they were able to reproduce the problem in their 
lab. Then about 3 hours later, another tech called back and told us we needed 
to upgrade the firmware (even though the first tech said we were running the 
latest).
We upgraded and that fixed the problem... but then we had a new problem.
The Allowed MAC address file somehow got corrupted... so they had to SSH into 
the base station and fix that file. (By the way, this AP is just running Linux 
2.6.14 kernel). We were now able to make a connection to one of the CPE (after 
setting up the service classifiers, service flows, and adding a service flow to 
this MAC address). Making a link on our test bench (10 feet away), we had a 
-55ish signal... however, the ping times and speeds were terrible (2000ms and 
at the most 2Mbps). I am thinking it was because this is running OFDM and in 
close proximity, the signals bounce all over. Last, all three techs that I 
talked to at Vecima asked Do you have an NMS (network management server)? and 
I had to continually say no and then they would say oh... I don't know how 
to do this manually. One of the reasons we were testing this solution is that 
it did not require their NMS to function... however, even their tech support is 
pretty limited if you don't have it. Their NMS se
 rver is about $5,000 (but a single server will support an entire network, with 
unlimited AP's and CPE).

On to the CPE: This is one of the worst designs of a CPE that I have ever seen. 
The entire unit is made by Tranzeo and looks just like their normal 2.4 CPE. It 
has the bar of lights on the top showing Power, LAN, RSSI, etc. The mounting 
bracket is the L bracket that bolts to the back and has a U-bolt and clamp to 
hook to the pipe. The biggest problem is how the ethernet cable connects. It 
has the white cover plate that goes over the RJ-45 connector that has to be 
bolted to the back of the radio... the problem is, the pass-thru connector is 
not big enough to allow an already crimped RJ-45 cable to pass thru... meaning, 
you have to run the cable thru the white plastic thing, then crimp it, then 
plug it in, and then screw the nuts down holding the white cover. If you ever 
have to replace the radio with something different, you have to cut the cable 
and then re-crimp. Also, I can guarantee that water is going to get into the 
RJ-45 as it is on the back of the radio and the water
  will always be trying to get into the white cover and then will just flow
right into the RJ-45. I have attached a picture that is 99% the same as this 
unit (except this unit is smaller than the picture). The other issue is the PoE 
injector that comes with the unit. This is the worst PoE that I have ever seen. 
I don't understand why they can't use a grounded PoE that doesn't require a 
separate ground wire. Use the ground built into the electrical wiring that is 
already there (like the PacWireless PoE units). Attached is a picture of the 
PoE that was supplied.

I will be testing the speeds and range this Monday (assuming the weather is 
better... we got 6 of snow and 40MPH winds last night). I will post more 
results as I have them. At this point, I am not really impressed with a $4,000 
AP that's just running Linux.

Travis
Microserv

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com

Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

2008-12-15 Thread Patrick Leary
I'll chime in with a few comments:

I admit to having been frustrated by the requirements in the 3.65 GHz
ruling by the ambiguity of the cooperation requirements and for sure
there are no first in rights. However, what I am seeing thus far in
practice is that first movers do enjoy a meaningful advantage in their
markets. Since WiMAX does represent a more significant CAPEX investment
on infrastructure, operators are reluctant to deploy aggressively in a
market where several operators are already live. Second, since the rule
does not define neither the nature nor extent of the cooperation, the
first in operators seem to have a leg up with the next in folks needing
to work around them to some extent. At a minimum, cooperation as it
relates to 3.65 GHz is a boon for the lawyer class and since most WISPs
are loathe to deploy an attorney to battle the first in's attorney, many
opt to find greener pastures. Also, according to me Redline friends, we
are learning that the FCC has rejected some registrations of multiple
operators on the same tower site. So on balance, the interference risks
in 3.65 GHz are minimal as compared to 5.x GHz and certainly the other
ISM bands.

I do wish that the FCC would use some of the 3.65 HGz license fees to
create an enforcement pool, as well as defining a more specific set of
rules and procedures for the human side of 3.65 GHz cooperation.

Cheers,

Patrick Leary
Aperto Networks
813.426.4230 mobile


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 9:36 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

I consider my reply to be of enough value that I am sending out on the
WISPA members list. You will see my reply there.
Scriv



On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:28 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net wrote:

  John,

 What are your thoughts about using the 3.65ghz band that has no 
 capabilities to handle any type of noise rejection? One of my big 
 concerns with 3.65ghz is spending a lot of money on base stations, 
 NMS, etc. and then having someone purchase a $3,000 LigoWave 3.65 
 point to point link and shut my system down completely. I believe this

 to be a _very_ real concern in this space.

 I know the Vecima equipment is just a frequency change from their 
 3.5ghz equipment. I know equipment in that band has nothing to deal 
 with noise, because they are licensed frequencies and therefore don't 
 need to worry about interference. Do you have concerns about this? The

 FCC has already said that problems will need to be worked out, and 
 that they are not going to step in and do anything. It will NOT be a 
 first come first serve basis as many believe.

 Thoughts? Comments?

 Travis
 Microserv

 John Scrivner wrote:

 My thoughts inline below:

 On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net
t...@ida.net wrote:



   U pricing is WAY, WAY different.

 Redline AP's are around $10k
 Vecima AP's are around $4k



  Redline has an FCC approved system with 3 - 120 degree sectors with a

 3-way splitter which allows for full 360 degree coverage now with one 
 sector controller  with upgrade path for more sector controllers as 
 your needs increase over time. Redline supports uplink 
 sub-channelization which adds about 15 db of increased receive 
 sensitivity to your CPE to base station link. I find the cost is 
 justified for the Redline system and I have one online that I am very 
 happy with. I am moving my leased line connections to WiMax with 
 better speeds and erquivalent reliability. The ROI for this base 
 station ist less than 2.5 years now and will improve as I add more 
 customers. I feel very satisfied with the Redline system and am
confident we will add more Redline bases in the future.





  Redline CPE's are $300 each (even in 250 quantity) Vecima CPE's are 
 less than $249



  Redline CPEs are built like a tank. They have the Intel WiMax Ruby 
 chipset (the best available at any price). Future migration to 802.16e

 for this CPE is a firmware flash. It is true that you have to buy 72 
 radios (not 250) to get the $300 price point. They are well worth the 
 money. I take a Redline CPE in with me on sales calls. The quality 
 helps me sell WiMax.. It is that nice of a piece. It is the best 
 quality CPE device I have used. It is very similar to the quality look
and feel of the Alvarion VL CPE radios.




  And, I was told Tranzeo is making Redline's CPE as well? Could you 
 send a picture of the Redline CPE?



  This is not true at all. Tranzeo and Redline CPEs are night and day 
 different from one another. The quality of the Redline CPE was a big 
 part of my decision to choose Redline as our WiMax platform. Nothing 
 touches the Intel Ruby chipset. It is the best going.
 Scriv


 --
 -- WISPA Wants You! Join today!http://signup.wispa.org

Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

2008-12-15 Thread Travis Johnson




Patrick,

Could you please share the exact information about the FCC rejecting
applications for the same tower? At ISPCon a month ago, there were
several people there that had deployed 3.65 and had even registered on
the same tower as other 3.65 people and the applications went through
just fine.

I think you are giving people the impression that if they are first to
the tower, they get entire use. This is NOT going to be the case. 

Travis
Microserv

Patrick Leary wrote:

  I'll chime in with a few comments:

I admit to having been frustrated by the requirements in the 3.65 GHz
ruling by the ambiguity of the cooperation requirements and for sure
there are no first in rights. However, what I am seeing thus far in
practice is that first movers do enjoy a meaningful advantage in their
markets. Since WiMAX does represent a more significant CAPEX investment
on infrastructure, operators are reluctant to deploy aggressively in a
market where several operators are already live. Second, since the rule
does not define neither the nature nor extent of the cooperation, the
first in operators seem to have a leg up with the next in folks needing
to work around them to some extent. At a minimum, cooperation as it
relates to 3.65 GHz is a boon for the lawyer class and since most WISPs
are loathe to deploy an attorney to battle the first in's attorney, many
opt to find greener pastures. Also, according to me Redline friends, we
are learning that the FCC has rejected some registrations of multiple
operators on the same tower site. So on balance, the interference risks
in 3.65 GHz are minimal as compared to 5.x GHz and certainly the other
ISM bands.

I do wish that the FCC would use some of the 3.65 HGz license fees to
create an enforcement pool, as well as defining a more specific set of
rules and procedures for the human side of 3.65 GHz cooperation.

Cheers,

Patrick Leary
Aperto Networks
813.426.4230 mobile


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 9:36 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

I consider my reply to be of enough value that I am sending out on the
WISPA members list. You will see my reply there.
Scriv



On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:28 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net wrote:

  
  
 John,

What are your thoughts about using the 3.65ghz band that has no 
capabilities to handle any type of noise rejection? One of my big 
concerns with 3.65ghz is spending a lot of money on base stations, 
NMS, etc. and then having someone purchase a $3,000 LigoWave 3.65 
point to point link and shut my system down completely. I believe this

  
  
  
  
to be a _very_ real concern in this space.

I know the Vecima equipment is just a frequency change from their 
3.5ghz equipment. I know equipment in that band has nothing to deal 
with noise, because they are licensed frequencies and therefore don't 
need to worry about interference. Do you have concerns about this? The

  
  
  
  
FCC has already said that problems will need to be "worked out", and 
that they are not going to step in and do anything. It will NOT be a 
first come first serve basis as many believe.

Thoughts? Comments?

Travis
Microserv

John Scrivner wrote:

My thoughts inline below:

On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net

  
  t...@ida.net wrote:
  
  


  U pricing is WAY, WAY different.

Redline AP's are around $10k
Vecima AP's are around $4k



 Redline has an FCC approved system with 3 - 120 degree sectors with a

  
  
  
  
3-way splitter which allows for full 360 degree coverage now with one 
sector controller  with upgrade path for more sector controllers as 
your needs increase over time. Redline supports uplink 
sub-channelization which adds about 15 db of increased receive 
sensitivity to your CPE to base station link. I find the cost is 
justified for the Redline system and I have one online that I am very 
happy with. I am moving my leased line connections to WiMax with 
better speeds and erquivalent reliability. The ROI for this base 
station ist less than 2.5 years now and will improve as I add more 
customers. I feel very satisfied with the Redline system and am

  
  confident we will add more Redline bases in the future.
  
  




 Redline CPE's are $300 each (even in 250 quantity) Vecima CPE's are 
less than $249



 Redline CPEs are built like a tank. They have the Intel WiMax Ruby 
chipset (the best available at any price). Future migration to 802.16e

  
  
  
  
for this CPE is a firmware flash. It is true that you have to buy 72 
radios (not 250) to get the $300 price point. They are well worth the 
money. I take a Redline CPE in with me on sales calls. The quality 
helps me sell WiMax.. It is that nice of a piece. It is the best 
quality CPE device I have used. It is very similar to the qu

Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

2008-12-15 Thread Patrick Leary
Hi Travis, I wish I had specifics, but I don't have anything other than
an anecdotal story told to me by Redline when I was at a conference. I
had always been under the impression an operator could register for the
same locations. 
 
Patrick



From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:08 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65


Patrick,

Could you please share the exact information about the FCC rejecting
applications for the same tower? At ISPCon a month ago, there were
several people there that had deployed 3.65 and had even registered on
the same tower as other 3.65 people and the applications went through
just fine.

I think you are giving people the impression that if they are first to
the tower, they get entire use. This is NOT going to be the case. 

Travis
Microserv

Patrick Leary wrote: 

I'll chime in with a few comments:

I admit to having been frustrated by the requirements in the
3.65 GHz
ruling by the ambiguity of the cooperation requirements and for
sure
there are no first in rights. However, what I am seeing thus far
in
practice is that first movers do enjoy a meaningful advantage in
their
markets. Since WiMAX does represent a more significant CAPEX
investment
on infrastructure, operators are reluctant to deploy
aggressively in a
market where several operators are already live. Second, since
the rule
does not define neither the nature nor extent of the
cooperation, the
first in operators seem to have a leg up with the next in folks
needing
to work around them to some extent. At a minimum, cooperation as
it
relates to 3.65 GHz is a boon for the lawyer class and since
most WISPs
are loathe to deploy an attorney to battle the first in's
attorney, many
opt to find greener pastures. Also, according to me Redline
friends, we
are learning that the FCC has rejected some registrations of
multiple
operators on the same tower site. So on balance, the
interference risks
in 3.65 GHz are minimal as compared to 5.x GHz and certainly the
other
ISM bands.

I do wish that the FCC would use some of the 3.65 HGz license
fees to
create an enforcement pool, as well as defining a more specific
set of
rules and procedures for the human side of 3.65 GHz cooperation.

Cheers,

Patrick Leary
Aperto Networks
813.426.4230 mobile


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 9:36 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

I consider my reply to be of enough value that I am sending out
on the
WISPA members list. You will see my reply there.
Scriv



On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:28 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net
mailto:t...@ida.net  wrote:

  

 John,

What are your thoughts about using the 3.65ghz band that
has no 
capabilities to handle any type of noise rejection? One
of my big 
concerns with 3.65ghz is spending a lot of money on base
stations, 
NMS, etc. and then having someone purchase a $3,000
LigoWave 3.65 
point to point link and shut my system down completely.
I believe this



  

to be a _very_ real concern in this space.

I know the Vecima equipment is just a frequency change
from their 
3.5ghz equipment. I know equipment in that band has
nothing to deal 
with noise, because they are licensed frequencies and
therefore don't 
need to worry about interference. Do you have concerns
about this? The



  

FCC has already said that problems will need to be
worked out, and 
that they are not going to step in and do anything. It
will NOT be a 
first come first serve basis as many believe.

Thoughts? Comments?

Travis
Microserv

John Scrivner wrote:

My thoughts inline below:

On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Travis Johnson
t...@ida.net mailto:t...@ida.net 


t...@ida.net mailto:t...@ida.net  wrote:
  


  U pricing is WAY, WAY different.

Redline AP's are around $10k

Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

2008-12-15 Thread 3-dB Networks
Patrick,

Respectfully I have been told the exact opposite by a WISP that was going to
do a large 3.65 deployment, except the local teleco registered all of the
high ground in the area preventing them from registering their own sites.
The teleco has no intention of deploying the gear, so now they are in a heck
of a problem.

Daniel White
3-dB Networks

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Patrick Leary
 Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:22 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
 
 Hi Travis, I wish I had specifics, but I don't have anything other than
 an anecdotal story told to me by Redline when I was at a conference. I
 had always been under the impression an operator could register for the
 same locations.
 
 Patrick
 
 
 
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Travis Johnson
 Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:08 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
 
 
 Patrick,
 
 Could you please share the exact information about the FCC rejecting
 applications for the same tower? At ISPCon a month ago, there were
 several people there that had deployed 3.65 and had even registered on
 the same tower as other 3.65 people and the applications went through
 just fine.
 
 I think you are giving people the impression that if they are first to
 the tower, they get entire use. This is NOT going to be the case.
 
 Travis
 Microserv
 
 Patrick Leary wrote:
 
   I'll chime in with a few comments:
 
   I admit to having been frustrated by the requirements in the
 3.65 GHz
   ruling by the ambiguity of the cooperation requirements and for
 sure
   there are no first in rights. However, what I am seeing thus far
 in
   practice is that first movers do enjoy a meaningful advantage in
 their
   markets. Since WiMAX does represent a more significant CAPEX
 investment
   on infrastructure, operators are reluctant to deploy
 aggressively in a
   market where several operators are already live. Second, since
 the rule
   does not define neither the nature nor extent of the
 cooperation, the
   first in operators seem to have a leg up with the next in folks
 needing
   to work around them to some extent. At a minimum, cooperation as
 it
   relates to 3.65 GHz is a boon for the lawyer class and since
 most WISPs
   are loathe to deploy an attorney to battle the first in's
 attorney, many
   opt to find greener pastures. Also, according to me Redline
 friends, we
   are learning that the FCC has rejected some registrations of
 multiple
   operators on the same tower site. So on balance, the
 interference risks
   in 3.65 GHz are minimal as compared to 5.x GHz and certainly the
 other
   ISM bands.
 
   I do wish that the FCC would use some of the 3.65 HGz license
 fees to
   create an enforcement pool, as well as defining a more specific
 set of
   rules and procedures for the human side of 3.65 GHz cooperation.
 
   Cheers,
 
   Patrick Leary
   Aperto Networks
   813.426.4230 mobile
 
 
   -Original Message-
   From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
 [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
   Behalf Of John Scrivner
   Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 9:36 PM
   To: WISPA General List
   Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
 
   I consider my reply to be of enough value that I am sending out
 on the
   WISPA members list. You will see my reply there.
   Scriv
 
 
 
   On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:28 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net
 mailto:t...@ida.net  wrote:
 
 
 
John,
 
   What are your thoughts about using the 3.65ghz band that
 has no
   capabilities to handle any type of noise rejection? One
 of my big
   concerns with 3.65ghz is spending a lot of money on base
 stations,
   NMS, etc. and then having someone purchase a $3,000
 LigoWave 3.65
   point to point link and shut my system down completely.
 I believe this
 
 
 
 
 
   to be a _very_ real concern in this space.
 
   I know the Vecima equipment is just a frequency change
 from their
   3.5ghz equipment. I know equipment in that band has
 nothing to deal
   with noise, because they are licensed frequencies and
 therefore don't
   need to worry about interference. Do you have concerns
 about this? The
 
 
 
 
 
   FCC has already said that problems will need to be
 worked out, and
   that they are not going to step in and do anything. It
 will NOT be a
   first come first serve basis as many believe.
 
   Thoughts? Comments?
 
   Travis
   Microserv
 
   John Scrivner wrote:
 
   My thoughts inline below

Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

2008-12-15 Thread Travis Johnson




Hi,

We are going to need specifics on this... because this is NOT what the
FCC has said would happen nor is it what other people (at ISPCon) have
said.

There is another story of a telco that owns several of the "ground
stations" that prevent others from registering 3.65 in that area... I
wonder if those stories are getting mixed together?

Travis


3-dB Networks wrote:

  Patrick,

Respectfully I have been told the exact opposite by a WISP that was going to
do a large 3.65 deployment, except the local teleco registered all of the
high ground in the area preventing them from registering their own sites.
The teleco has no intention of deploying the gear, so now they are in a heck
of a problem.

Daniel White
3-dB Networks

  
  
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:22 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

Hi Travis, I wish I had specifics, but I don't have anything other than
an anecdotal story told to me by Redline when I was at a conference. I
had always been under the impression an operator could register for the
same locations.

Patrick



From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:08 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65


Patrick,

Could you please share the exact information about the FCC rejecting
applications for the same tower? At ISPCon a month ago, there were
several people there that had deployed 3.65 and had even registered on
the same tower as other 3.65 people and the applications went through
just fine.

I think you are giving people the impression that if they are first to
the tower, they get entire use. This is NOT going to be the case.

Travis
Microserv

Patrick Leary wrote:

	I'll chime in with a few comments:

	I admit to having been frustrated by the requirements in the
3.65 GHz
	ruling by the ambiguity of the cooperation requirements and for
sure
	there are no first in rights. However, what I am seeing thus far
in
	practice is that first movers do enjoy a meaningful advantage in
their
	markets. Since WiMAX does represent a more significant CAPEX
investment
	on infrastructure, operators are reluctant to deploy
aggressively in a
	market where several operators are already live. Second, since
the rule
	does not define neither the nature nor extent of the
cooperation, the
	first in operators seem to have a leg up with the next in folks
needing
	to work around them to some extent. At a minimum, cooperation as
it
	relates to 3.65 GHz is a boon for the lawyer class and since
most WISPs
	are loathe to deploy an attorney to battle the first in's
attorney, many
	opt to find greener pastures. Also, according to me Redline
friends, we
	are learning that the FCC has rejected some registrations of
multiple
	operators on the same tower site. So on balance, the
interference risks
	in 3.65 GHz are minimal as compared to 5.x GHz and certainly the
other
	ISM bands.

	I do wish that the FCC would use some of the 3.65 HGz license
fees to
	create an enforcement pool, as well as defining a more specific
set of
	rules and procedures for the human side of 3.65 GHz cooperation.

	Cheers,

	Patrick Leary
	Aperto Networks
	813.426.4230 mobile


	-Original Message-
	From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
	Behalf Of John Scrivner
	Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 9:36 PM
	To: WISPA General List
	Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

	I consider my reply to be of enough value that I am sending out
on the
	WISPA members list. You will see my reply there.
	Scriv



	On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:28 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net
mailto:t...@ida.net  wrote:



		 John,

		What are your thoughts about using the 3.65ghz band that
has no
		capabilities to handle any type of noise rejection? One
of my big
		concerns with 3.65ghz is spending a lot of money on base
stations,
		NMS, etc. and then having someone purchase a $3,000
LigoWave 3.65
		point to point link and shut my system down completely.
I believe this





		to be a _very_ real concern in this space.

		I know the Vecima equipment is just a frequency change
from their
		3.5ghz equipment. I know equipment in that band has
nothing to deal
		with noise, because they are licensed frequencies and
therefore don't
		need to worry about interference. Do you have concerns
about this? The





		FCC has already said that problems will need to be
"worked out", and
		that they are not going to step in and do anything. It
will NOT be a
		first come first serve basis as many believe.

		Thoughts? Comments?

		Travis
		Microserv

		John Scrivner wrote:

		My thoughts inline below:

		On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Travis Johnson
t...@ida.net mailto:t...@ida.net


	t...@ida.net mailto:t...@ida.net  wrote:



		  U pricing i

Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

2008-12-15 Thread Patrick Leary
I have always assumed multiple operators could register the same site
too. Though I was skeptical (and remain so), Remi was really emphatic
that the same site could not be registered and he mentioned that the
Part 90 rule has some language that prevents multiple registrations.
Like you, I'd need proof.



From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:29 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65


Hi,

We are going to need specifics on this... because this is NOT what the
FCC has said would happen nor is it what other people (at ISPCon) have
said.

There is another story of a telco that owns several of the ground
stations that prevent others from registering 3.65 in that area... I
wonder if those stories are getting mixed together?

Travis


3-dB Networks wrote: 

Patrick,

Respectfully I have been told the exact opposite by a WISP that
was going to
do a large 3.65 deployment, except the local teleco registered
all of the
high ground in the area preventing them from registering their
own sites.
The teleco has no intention of deploying the gear, so now they
are in a heck
of a problem.

Daniel White
3-dB Networks

  

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:22 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

Hi Travis, I wish I had specifics, but I don't have
anything other than
an anecdotal story told to me by Redline when I was at a
conference. I
had always been under the impression an operator could
register for the
same locations.

Patrick



From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:08 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65


Patrick,

Could you please share the exact information about the
FCC rejecting
applications for the same tower? At ISPCon a month ago,
there were
several people there that had deployed 3.65 and had even
registered on
the same tower as other 3.65 people and the applications
went through
just fine.

I think you are giving people the impression that if
they are first to
the tower, they get entire use. This is NOT going to be
the case.

Travis
Microserv

Patrick Leary wrote:

I'll chime in with a few comments:

I admit to having been frustrated by the
requirements in the
3.65 GHz
ruling by the ambiguity of the cooperation
requirements and for
sure
there are no first in rights. However, what I am
seeing thus far
in
practice is that first movers do enjoy a
meaningful advantage in
their
markets. Since WiMAX does represent a more
significant CAPEX
investment
on infrastructure, operators are reluctant to
deploy
aggressively in a
market where several operators are already live.
Second, since
the rule
does not define neither the nature nor extent of
the
cooperation, the
first in operators seem to have a leg up with
the next in folks
needing
to work around them to some extent. At a
minimum, cooperation as
it
relates to 3.65 GHz is a boon for the lawyer
class and since
most WISPs
are loathe to deploy an attorney to battle the
first in's
attorney, many
opt to find greener pastures. Also, according to
me Redline
friends, we
are learning that the FCC has rejected some
registrations of
multiple
operators on the same tower site. So on balance,
the
interference risks
in 3.65 GHz are minimal as compared to 5.x GHz
and certainly

Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

2008-12-15 Thread 3-dB Networks
Not sure how I can prove it... being that I didn't actually go through this
but its what one of our customers told us (and they are not on the list).

Daniel White
3-dB Networks

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Patrick Leary
 Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:42 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
 
 I have always assumed multiple operators could register the same site
 too. Though I was skeptical (and remain so), Remi was really emphatic
 that the same site could not be registered and he mentioned that the
 Part 90 rule has some language that prevents multiple registrations.
 Like you, I'd need proof.
 
 
 
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Travis Johnson
 Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:29 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
 
 
 Hi,
 
 We are going to need specifics on this... because this is NOT what the
 FCC has said would happen nor is it what other people (at ISPCon) have
 said.
 
 There is another story of a telco that owns several of the ground
 stations that prevent others from registering 3.65 in that area... I
 wonder if those stories are getting mixed together?
 
 Travis
 
 
 3-dB Networks wrote:
 
   Patrick,
 
   Respectfully I have been told the exact opposite by a WISP that
 was going to
   do a large 3.65 deployment, except the local teleco registered
 all of the
   high ground in the area preventing them from registering their
 own sites.
   The teleco has no intention of deploying the gear, so now they
 are in a heck
   of a problem.
 
   Daniel White
   3-dB Networks
 
 
 
   -Original Message-
   From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
 [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
   Behalf Of Patrick Leary
   Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:22 AM
   To: WISPA General List
   Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
 
   Hi Travis, I wish I had specifics, but I don't have
 anything other than
   an anecdotal story told to me by Redline when I was at a
 conference. I
   had always been under the impression an operator could
 register for the
   same locations.
 
   Patrick
 
   
 
   From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
 [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
   Behalf Of Travis Johnson
   Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:08 AM
   To: WISPA General List
   Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
 
 
   Patrick,
 
   Could you please share the exact information about the
 FCC rejecting
   applications for the same tower? At ISPCon a month ago,
 there were
   several people there that had deployed 3.65 and had even
 registered on
   the same tower as other 3.65 people and the applications
 went through
   just fine.
 
   I think you are giving people the impression that if
 they are first to
   the tower, they get entire use. This is NOT going to be
 the case.
 
   Travis
   Microserv
 
   Patrick Leary wrote:
 
   I'll chime in with a few comments:
 
   I admit to having been frustrated by the
 requirements in the
   3.65 GHz
   ruling by the ambiguity of the cooperation
 requirements and for
   sure
   there are no first in rights. However, what I am
 seeing thus far
   in
   practice is that first movers do enjoy a
 meaningful advantage in
   their
   markets. Since WiMAX does represent a more
 significant CAPEX
   investment
   on infrastructure, operators are reluctant to
 deploy
   aggressively in a
   market where several operators are already live.
 Second, since
   the rule
   does not define neither the nature nor extent of
 the
   cooperation, the
   first in operators seem to have a leg up with
 the next in folks
   needing
   to work around them to some extent. At a
 minimum, cooperation as
   it
   relates to 3.65 GHz is a boon for the lawyer
 class and since
   most WISPs
   are loathe to deploy an attorney to battle the
 first in's
   attorney, many
   opt to find greener pastures. Also, according to
 me Redline
   friends, we
   are learning that the FCC has rejected some
 registrations of
   multiple

Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

2008-12-15 Thread Gino Villarini
This is easy to confirm, just go ahead an register a base on a know site



Gino A. Villarini
g...@aeronetpr.com
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of 3-dB Networks
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

Not sure how I can prove it... being that I didn't actually go through
this but its what one of our customers told us (and they are not on the
list).

Daniel White
3-dB Networks

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] 
 On Behalf Of Patrick Leary
 Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:42 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
 
 I have always assumed multiple operators could register the same site 
 too. Though I was skeptical (and remain so), Remi was really emphatic 
 that the same site could not be registered and he mentioned that the 
 Part 90 rule has some language that prevents multiple registrations.
 Like you, I'd need proof.
 
 
 
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] 
 On Behalf Of Travis Johnson
 Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:29 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
 
 
 Hi,
 
 We are going to need specifics on this... because this is NOT what the

 FCC has said would happen nor is it what other people (at ISPCon) have

 said.
 
 There is another story of a telco that owns several of the ground 
 stations that prevent others from registering 3.65 in that area... I 
 wonder if those stories are getting mixed together?
 
 Travis
 
 
 3-dB Networks wrote:
 
   Patrick,
 
   Respectfully I have been told the exact opposite by a WISP that
was 
 going to
   do a large 3.65 deployment, except the local teleco registered
all of 
 the
   high ground in the area preventing them from registering their
own 
 sites.
   The teleco has no intention of deploying the gear, so now they
are in 
 a heck
   of a problem.
 
   Daniel White
   3-dB Networks
 
 
 
   -Original Message-
   From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
 [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
   Behalf Of Patrick Leary
   Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:22 AM
   To: WISPA General List
   Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
 
   Hi Travis, I wish I had specifics, but I don't have
anything other 
 than
   an anecdotal story told to me by Redline when I was at a
conference. 
 I
   had always been under the impression an operator could
register for 
 the
   same locations.
 
   Patrick
 
   
 
   From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
 [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
   Behalf Of Travis Johnson
   Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:08 AM
   To: WISPA General List
   Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
 
 
   Patrick,
 
   Could you please share the exact information about the
FCC rejecting
   applications for the same tower? At ISPCon a month ago,
there were
   several people there that had deployed 3.65 and had even
registered 
 on
   the same tower as other 3.65 people and the applications
went 
 through
   just fine.
 
   I think you are giving people the impression that if
they are first 
 to
   the tower, they get entire use. This is NOT going to be
the case.
 
   Travis
   Microserv
 
   Patrick Leary wrote:
 
   I'll chime in with a few comments:
 
   I admit to having been frustrated by the
requirements in the
   3.65 GHz
   ruling by the ambiguity of the cooperation
requirements and for
   sure
   there are no first in rights. However, what I am
seeing thus far
   in
   practice is that first movers do enjoy a
meaningful advantage in
   their
   markets. Since WiMAX does represent a more
significant CAPEX
   investment
   on infrastructure, operators are reluctant to
deploy
   aggressively in a
   market where several operators are already live.
 Second, since
   the rule
   does not define neither the nature nor extent of
the
   cooperation, the
   first in operators seem to have a leg up with
the next in folks
   needing
   to work around them to some extent. At a
minimum, cooperation as
   it
   relates to 3.65 GHz is a boon

Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

2008-12-15 Thread 3-dB Networks
I don't have a license to do it with :-)

Daniel White
3-dB Networks

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Gino Villarini
 Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 10:00 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
 
 This is easy to confirm, just go ahead an register a base on a know site
 
 
 
 Gino A. Villarini
 g...@aeronetpr.com
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
 
 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of 3-dB Networks
 Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
 To: 'WISPA General List'
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
 
 Not sure how I can prove it... being that I didn't actually go through
 this but its what one of our customers told us (and they are not on the
 list).
 
 Daniel White
 3-dB Networks
 
  -Original Message-
  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
  On Behalf Of Patrick Leary
  Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:42 AM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
 
  I have always assumed multiple operators could register the same site
  too. Though I was skeptical (and remain so), Remi was really emphatic
  that the same site could not be registered and he mentioned that the
  Part 90 rule has some language that prevents multiple registrations.
  Like you, I'd need proof.
 
  
 
  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
  On Behalf Of Travis Johnson
  Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:29 AM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
 
 
  Hi,
 
  We are going to need specifics on this... because this is NOT what the
 
  FCC has said would happen nor is it what other people (at ISPCon) have
 
  said.
 
  There is another story of a telco that owns several of the ground
  stations that prevent others from registering 3.65 in that area... I
  wonder if those stories are getting mixed together?
 
  Travis
 
 
  3-dB Networks wrote:
 
  Patrick,
 
  Respectfully I have been told the exact opposite by a WISP that
 was
  going to
  do a large 3.65 deployment, except the local teleco registered
 all of
  the
  high ground in the area preventing them from registering their
 own
  sites.
  The teleco has no intention of deploying the gear, so now they
 are in
  a heck
  of a problem.
 
  Daniel White
  3-dB Networks
 
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
  [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
  Behalf Of Patrick Leary
  Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:22 AM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
 
  Hi Travis, I wish I had specifics, but I don't have
 anything other
  than
  an anecdotal story told to me by Redline when I was at a
 conference.
  I
  had always been under the impression an operator could
 register for
  the
  same locations.
 
  Patrick
 
  
 
  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
  [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
  Behalf Of Travis Johnson
  Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:08 AM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
 
 
  Patrick,
 
  Could you please share the exact information about the
 FCC rejecting
  applications for the same tower? At ISPCon a month ago,
 there were
  several people there that had deployed 3.65 and had even
 registered
  on
  the same tower as other 3.65 people and the applications
 went
  through
  just fine.
 
  I think you are giving people the impression that if
 they are first
  to
  the tower, they get entire use. This is NOT going to be
 the case.
 
  Travis
  Microserv
 
  Patrick Leary wrote:
 
  I'll chime in with a few comments:
 
  I admit to having been frustrated by the
 requirements in the
  3.65 GHz
  ruling by the ambiguity of the cooperation
 requirements and for
  sure
  there are no first in rights. However, what I am
 seeing thus far
  in
  practice is that first movers do enjoy a
 meaningful advantage in
  their
  markets. Since WiMAX does represent a more
 significant CAPEX
  investment
  on infrastructure, operators are reluctant to
 deploy
  aggressively in a
  market where several operators are already live.
  Second, since
  the rule
  does not define neither the nature nor

Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 update

2008-12-15 Thread Gino Villarini
What QOS are you using on that conenction? Berst effort? 


Gino A. Villarini
g...@aeronetpr.com
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 1:39 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 update

Hi,

Ok... we mounted the base station yesterday and put up the CPE at our
office this morning. It's a 7 mile shot, and we have a -77 RSSI running
at 16QAM. We are able to get up to 6Mbps x 6Mbps right now (can't do
more because the base station has a limit of 6Mbps per CPE set right
now).

Here is my biggest complaint with the bandwidth/speed/latency. The BEST
possible latency we can get is 35ms. This is with absolutely no traffic,
and just a normal Windows XP ping. This is not acceptable for this type
of equipment. I know people have talked about Redline being about the
same.

Any other quick tests anyone wants to see before we take the CPE down?

Travis
Microserv




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 update

2008-12-15 Thread John Scrivner
I get 10 ms on every packet every time with no loss. I am using Redline with
non-real time polling.
Scriv


On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com wrote:

 What QOS are you using on that conenction? Berst effort?


 Gino A. Villarini
 g...@aeronetpr.com
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Travis Johnson
 Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 1:39 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 update

 Hi,

 Ok... we mounted the base station yesterday and put up the CPE at our
 office this morning. It's a 7 mile shot, and we have a -77 RSSI running
 at 16QAM. We are able to get up to 6Mbps x 6Mbps right now (can't do
 more because the base station has a limit of 6Mbps per CPE set right
 now).

 Here is my biggest complaint with the bandwidth/speed/latency. The BEST
 possible latency we can get is 35ms. This is with absolutely no traffic,
 and just a normal Windows XP ping. This is not acceptable for this type
 of equipment. I know people have talked about Redline being about the
 same.

 Any other quick tests anyone wants to see before we take the CPE down?

 Travis
 Microserv


 
 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/

 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 update

2008-12-15 Thread Travis Johnson
We tried them all... best effort, non-polling real time, and polling 
real time. All the same latency. We are also using 5ms frame and 1/8 
carrier.

Travis


Gino Villarini wrote:
 What QOS are you using on that conenction? Berst effort? 


 Gino A. Villarini
 g...@aeronetpr.com
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Travis Johnson
 Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 1:39 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 update

 Hi,

 Ok... we mounted the base station yesterday and put up the CPE at our
 office this morning. It's a 7 mile shot, and we have a -77 RSSI running
 at 16QAM. We are able to get up to 6Mbps x 6Mbps right now (can't do
 more because the base station has a limit of 6Mbps per CPE set right
 now).

 Here is my biggest complaint with the bandwidth/speed/latency. The BEST
 possible latency we can get is 35ms. This is with absolutely no traffic,
 and just a normal Windows XP ping. This is not acceptable for this type
 of equipment. I know people have talked about Redline being about the
 same.

 Any other quick tests anyone wants to see before we take the CPE down?

 Travis
 Microserv


 
 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 
 
  
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 
  
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


   



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 update

2008-12-15 Thread John Scrivner
Switch to 1/4 carrier and 10 ms. I bet it clears up.
Scriv


On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net wrote:

 We tried them all... best effort, non-polling real time, and polling
 real time. All the same latency. We are also using 5ms frame and 1/8
 carrier.

 Travis


 Gino Villarini wrote:
  What QOS are you using on that conenction? Berst effort?
 
 
  Gino A. Villarini
  g...@aeronetpr.com
  Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
  tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
 
  -Original Message-
  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
  Behalf Of Travis Johnson
  Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 1:39 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 update
 
  Hi,
 
  Ok... we mounted the base station yesterday and put up the CPE at our
  office this morning. It's a 7 mile shot, and we have a -77 RSSI running
  at 16QAM. We are able to get up to 6Mbps x 6Mbps right now (can't do
  more because the base station has a limit of 6Mbps per CPE set right
  now).
 
  Here is my biggest complaint with the bandwidth/speed/latency. The BEST
  possible latency we can get is 35ms. This is with absolutely no traffic,
  and just a normal Windows XP ping. This is not acceptable for this type
  of equipment. I know people have talked about Redline being about the
  same.
 
  Any other quick tests anyone wants to see before we take the CPE down?
 
  Travis
  Microserv
 
 
  
  
  WISPA Wants You! Join today!
  http://signup.wispa.org/
  
  
 
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 
 
 
  WISPA Wants You! Join today!
  http://signup.wispa.org/
 
 
 
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 
 



 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/

 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

2008-12-15 Thread eje
Bring out your credit card and go get one. Run you a wooping $260 and take you 
about 10min to do. ;)

/Eje
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

-Original Message-
From: 3-dB Networks wi...@3-db.net

Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:04:18 
To: 'WISPA General List'wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65


I don't have a license to do it with :-)

Daniel White
3-dB Networks

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Gino Villarini
 Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 10:00 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
 
 This is easy to confirm, just go ahead an register a base on a know site
 
 
 
 Gino A. Villarini
 g...@aeronetpr.com
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
 
 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of 3-dB Networks
 Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
 To: 'WISPA General List'
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
 
 Not sure how I can prove it... being that I didn't actually go through
 this but its what one of our customers told us (and they are not on the
 list).
 
 Daniel White
 3-dB Networks
 
  -Original Message-
  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
  On Behalf Of Patrick Leary
  Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:42 AM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
 
  I have always assumed multiple operators could register the same site
  too. Though I was skeptical (and remain so), Remi was really emphatic
  that the same site could not be registered and he mentioned that the
  Part 90 rule has some language that prevents multiple registrations.
  Like you, I'd need proof.
 
  
 
  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
  On Behalf Of Travis Johnson
  Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:29 AM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
 
 
  Hi,
 
  We are going to need specifics on this... because this is NOT what the
 
  FCC has said would happen nor is it what other people (at ISPCon) have
 
  said.
 
  There is another story of a telco that owns several of the ground
  stations that prevent others from registering 3.65 in that area... I
  wonder if those stories are getting mixed together?
 
  Travis
 
 
  3-dB Networks wrote:
 
  Patrick,
 
  Respectfully I have been told the exact opposite by a WISP that
 was
  going to
  do a large 3.65 deployment, except the local teleco registered
 all of
  the
  high ground in the area preventing them from registering their
 own
  sites.
  The teleco has no intention of deploying the gear, so now they
 are in
  a heck
  of a problem.
 
  Daniel White
  3-dB Networks
 
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
  [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
  Behalf Of Patrick Leary
  Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:22 AM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
 
  Hi Travis, I wish I had specifics, but I don't have
 anything other
  than
  an anecdotal story told to me by Redline when I was at a
 conference.
  I
  had always been under the impression an operator could
 register for
  the
  same locations.
 
  Patrick
 
  
 
  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
  [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
  Behalf Of Travis Johnson
  Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:08 AM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
 
 
  Patrick,
 
  Could you please share the exact information about the
 FCC rejecting
  applications for the same tower? At ISPCon a month ago,
 there were
  several people there that had deployed 3.65 and had even
 registered
  on
  the same tower as other 3.65 people and the applications
 went
  through
  just fine.
 
  I think you are giving people the impression that if
 they are first
  to
  the tower, they get entire use. This is NOT going to be
 the case.
 
  Travis
  Microserv
 
  Patrick Leary wrote:
 
  I'll chime in with a few comments:
 
  I admit to having been frustrated by the
 requirements in the
  3.65 GHz
  ruling by the ambiguity of the cooperation
 requirements and for
  sure
  there are no first in rights. However, what I am
 seeing thus far
  in
  practice is that first movers do enjoy a
 meaningful advantage in
  their
  markets. Since WiMAX does represent a more

Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

2008-12-15 Thread 3-dB Networks
LOL but why would I... I'm not a WISP so I'll never deploy gear.

Maybe it impresses girls ;-)

Daniel White
3-dB Networks

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of e...@wisp-router.com
 Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 11:12 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
 
 Bring out your credit card and go get one. Run you a wooping $260 and take
 you about 10min to do. ;)
 
 /Eje
 Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
 
 -Original Message-
 From: 3-dB Networks wi...@3-db.net
 
 Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:04:18
 To: 'WISPA General List'wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
 
 
 I don't have a license to do it with :-)
 
 Daniel White
 3-dB Networks
 
  -Original Message-
  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
  Behalf Of Gino Villarini
  Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 10:00 AM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
 
  This is easy to confirm, just go ahead an register a base on a know site
 
 
 
  Gino A. Villarini
  g...@aeronetpr.com
  Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
  tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
 
  -Original Message-
  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
  Behalf Of 3-dB Networks
  Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
  To: 'WISPA General List'
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
 
  Not sure how I can prove it... being that I didn't actually go through
  this but its what one of our customers told us (and they are not on the
  list).
 
  Daniel White
  3-dB Networks
 
   -Original Message-
   From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
   On Behalf Of Patrick Leary
   Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:42 AM
   To: WISPA General List
   Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
  
   I have always assumed multiple operators could register the same site
   too. Though I was skeptical (and remain so), Remi was really emphatic
   that the same site could not be registered and he mentioned that the
   Part 90 rule has some language that prevents multiple registrations.
   Like you, I'd need proof.
  
   
  
   From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
   On Behalf Of Travis Johnson
   Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:29 AM
   To: WISPA General List
   Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
  
  
   Hi,
  
   We are going to need specifics on this... because this is NOT what the
 
   FCC has said would happen nor is it what other people (at ISPCon) have
 
   said.
  
   There is another story of a telco that owns several of the ground
   stations that prevent others from registering 3.65 in that area... I
   wonder if those stories are getting mixed together?
  
   Travis
  
  
   3-dB Networks wrote:
  
 Patrick,
  
 Respectfully I have been told the exact opposite by a WISP that
  was
   going to
 do a large 3.65 deployment, except the local teleco registered
  all of
   the
 high ground in the area preventing them from registering their
  own
   sites.
 The teleco has no intention of deploying the gear, so now they
  are in
   a heck
 of a problem.
  
 Daniel White
 3-dB Networks
  
  
  
 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
   [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Patrick Leary
 Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:22 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
  
 Hi Travis, I wish I had specifics, but I don't have
  anything other
   than
 an anecdotal story told to me by Redline when I was at a
  conference.
   I
 had always been under the impression an operator could
  register for
   the
 same locations.
  
 Patrick
  
 
  
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
   [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Travis Johnson
 Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:08 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
  
  
 Patrick,
  
 Could you please share the exact information about the
  FCC rejecting
 applications for the same tower? At ISPCon a month ago,
  there were
 several people there that had deployed 3.65 and had even
  registered
   on
 the same tower as other 3.65 people and the applications
  went
   through
 just fine.
  
 I think you are giving people the impression that if
  they are first
   to
 the tower, they get entire use. This is NOT going to be
  the case.
  
 Travis
 Microserv
  
 Patrick Leary wrote:
  
 I'll chime in with a few comments:
  
 I admit to having been frustrated

Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

2008-12-15 Thread reader
I have a license and registered site.

I'm about to find out exactly how the FCC intends to deal with this.

The site owner is a bandwidth provider, and they signed a frequency 
coordination agreement with someone else, but I got my license and site 
first.

The other' guy is objecting to my using a full spectrum radio there .  I 
don't know if he has tried to register yet or not.





insert witty tagline here

- Original Message - 
From: Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65


 This is easy to confirm, just go ahead an register a base on a know site



 Gino A. Villarini
 g...@aeronetpr.com
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of 3-dB Networks
 Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM
 To: 'WISPA General List'
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

 Not sure how I can prove it... being that I didn't actually go through
 this but its what one of our customers told us (and they are not on the
 list).

 Daniel White
 3-dB Networks

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
 On Behalf Of Patrick Leary
 Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:42 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

 I have always assumed multiple operators could register the same site
 too. Though I was skeptical (and remain so), Remi was really emphatic
 that the same site could not be registered and he mentioned that the
 Part 90 rule has some language that prevents multiple registrations.
 Like you, I'd need proof.

 

 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
 On Behalf Of Travis Johnson
 Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:29 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65


 Hi,

 We are going to need specifics on this... because this is NOT what the

 FCC has said would happen nor is it what other people (at ISPCon) have

 said.

 There is another story of a telco that owns several of the ground
 stations that prevent others from registering 3.65 in that area... I
 wonder if those stories are getting mixed together?

 Travis


 3-dB Networks wrote:

 Patrick,

 Respectfully I have been told the exact opposite by a WISP that
 was
 going to
 do a large 3.65 deployment, except the local teleco registered
 all of
 the
 high ground in the area preventing them from registering their
 own
 sites.
 The teleco has no intention of deploying the gear, so now they
 are in
 a heck
 of a problem.

 Daniel White
 3-dB Networks



 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
 [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Patrick Leary
 Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:22 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

 Hi Travis, I wish I had specifics, but I don't have
 anything other
 than
 an anecdotal story told to me by Redline when I was at a
 conference.
 I
 had always been under the impression an operator could
 register for
 the
 same locations.

 Patrick

 

 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
 [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Travis Johnson
 Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:08 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65


 Patrick,

 Could you please share the exact information about the
 FCC rejecting
 applications for the same tower? At ISPCon a month ago,
 there were
 several people there that had deployed 3.65 and had even
 registered
 on
 the same tower as other 3.65 people and the applications
 went
 through
 just fine.

 I think you are giving people the impression that if
 they are first
 to
 the tower, they get entire use. This is NOT going to be
 the case.

 Travis
 Microserv

 Patrick Leary wrote:

 I'll chime in with a few comments:

 I admit to having been frustrated by the
 requirements in the
 3.65 GHz
 ruling by the ambiguity of the cooperation
 requirements and for
 sure
 there are no first in rights. However, what I am
 seeing thus far
 in
 practice is that first movers do enjoy a
 meaningful advantage in
 their
 markets. Since WiMAX does represent a more
 significant CAPEX
 investment
 on infrastructure, operators are reluctant to
 deploy
 aggressively in a
 market where several operators are already live.
 Second, since
 the rule
 does not define neither the nature nor extent of
 the
 cooperation, the
 first in operators seem to have a leg up with
 the next in folks
 needing
 to work around them to some extent. At a
 minimum, cooperation as
 it
 relates to 3.65 GHz is a boon for the lawyer
 class and since
 most WISPs
 are loathe to deploy an attorney to battle the
 first in's
 attorney, many
 opt to find greener pastures. Also, according to
 me Redline
 friends, we
 are learning

Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 update

2008-12-15 Thread Gino Villarini
its all part of how the Wimax MAC works ...,
 

Gino A. Villarini 
g...@aeronetpr.com 
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. 
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145 

 



From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 7:53 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 update


Actually the ping times went to 60ms with those changes.

Travis


John Scrivner wrote: 

Switch to 1/4 carrier and 10 ms. I bet it clears up.
Scriv


On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net
mailto:t...@ida.net  wrote:

  

We tried them all... best effort, non-polling real time,
and polling
real time. All the same latency. We are also using 5ms
frame and 1/8
carrier.

Travis


Gino Villarini wrote:


What QOS are you using on that conenction? Berst
effort?


Gino A. Villarini
g...@aeronetpr.com
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 1:39 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 update

Hi,

Ok... we mounted the base station yesterday and
put up the CPE at our
office this morning. It's a 7 mile shot, and we
have a -77 RSSI running
at 16QAM. We are able to get up to 6Mbps x 6Mbps
right now (can't do
more because the base station has a limit of
6Mbps per CPE set right
now).

Here is my biggest complaint with the
bandwidth/speed/latency. The BEST
possible latency we can get is 35ms. This is
with absolutely no traffic,
and just a normal Windows XP ping. This is not
acceptable for this type
of equipment. I know people have talked about
Redline being about the
same.

Any other quick tests anyone wants to see
before we take the CPE down?

Travis
Microserv





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/




WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



  






WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

  






WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



  





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/





WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 update

2008-12-15 Thread Travis Johnson
So did you get your latency down from 30-40ms? I remember you were 
having the same problem a few weeks ago with the Redline stuff?

Travis


Gino Villarini wrote:
 its all part of how the Wimax MAC works ...,
  

 Gino A. Villarini 
 g...@aeronetpr.com 
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. 
 tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145 

  

 

 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Travis Johnson
 Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 7:53 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 update


 Actually the ping times went to 60ms with those changes.

 Travis


 John Scrivner wrote: 

   Switch to 1/4 carrier and 10 ms. I bet it clears up.
   Scriv
   
   
   On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net
 mailto:t...@ida.net  wrote:
   
 

   We tried them all... best effort, non-polling real time,
 and polling
   real time. All the same latency. We are also using 5ms
 frame and 1/8
   carrier.
   
   Travis
   
   
   Gino Villarini wrote:
   

   What QOS are you using on that conenction? Berst
 effort?
   
   
   Gino A. Villarini
   g...@aeronetpr.com
   Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
   tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
   
   -Original Message-
   From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
 [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
   Behalf Of Travis Johnson
   Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 1:39 PM
   To: WISPA General List
   Subject: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 update
   
   Hi,
   
   Ok... we mounted the base station yesterday and
 put up the CPE at our
   office this morning. It's a 7 mile shot, and we
 have a -77 RSSI running
   at 16QAM. We are able to get up to 6Mbps x 6Mbps
 right now (can't do
   more because the base station has a limit of
 6Mbps per CPE set right
   now).
   
   Here is my biggest complaint with the
 bandwidth/speed/latency. The BEST
   possible latency we can get is 35ms. This is
 with absolutely no traffic,
   and just a normal Windows XP ping. This is not
 acceptable for this type
   of equipment. I know people have talked about
 Redline being about the
   same.
   
   Any other quick tests anyone wants to see
 before we take the CPE down?
   
   Travis
   Microserv
   
   
   
 
   
   WISPA Wants You! Join today!
   http://signup.wispa.org/
   
 
   
   
   WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
   
   Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
   http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
   
   Archives:
 http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
   
   
   
 

   
 
 
   

   WISPA Wants You! Join today!
   http://signup.wispa.org/
   
 

   
 
 
   

   WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
   
   Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
   http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
   
   Archives:
 http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
   
   
   
 

   
   
 
 
   WISPA Wants You! Join today!
   http://signup.wispa.org/
   
   
 
 
   
   WISPA Wireless List: wireless

Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 update

2008-12-15 Thread Randy Cosby
The line I've heard from the Wimax companies is that the latency may be 
higher, but the jitter is very low -- ie: you'll get the same latency 
consistently, and that's good for voip / video.

Randy


Travis Johnson wrote:
 So did you get your latency down from 30-40ms? I remember you were 
 having the same problem a few weeks ago with the Redline stuff?

 Travis


 Gino Villarini wrote:
   
 its all part of how the Wimax MAC works ...,
  

 Gino A. Villarini 
 g...@aeronetpr.com 
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. 
 tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145 

  

 

 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Travis Johnson
 Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 7:53 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 update


 Actually the ping times went to 60ms with those changes.

 Travis


 John Scrivner wrote: 

  Switch to 1/4 carrier and 10 ms. I bet it clears up.
  Scriv
  
  
  On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net
 mailto:t...@ida.net  wrote:
  


  We tried them all... best effort, non-polling real time,
 and polling
  real time. All the same latency. We are also using 5ms
 frame and 1/8
  carrier.
  
  Travis
  
  
  Gino Villarini wrote:
  

  What QOS are you using on that conenction? Berst
 effort?
  
  
  Gino A. Villarini
  g...@aeronetpr.com
  Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
  tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
  
  -Original Message-
  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
 [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
  Behalf Of Travis Johnson
  Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 1:39 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 update
  
  Hi,
  
  Ok... we mounted the base station yesterday and
 put up the CPE at our
  office this morning. It's a 7 mile shot, and we
 have a -77 RSSI running
  at 16QAM. We are able to get up to 6Mbps x 6Mbps
 right now (can't do
  more because the base station has a limit of
 6Mbps per CPE set right
  now).
  
  Here is my biggest complaint with the
 bandwidth/speed/latency. The BEST
  possible latency we can get is 35ms. This is
 with absolutely no traffic,
  and just a normal Windows XP ping. This is not
 acceptable for this type
  of equipment. I know people have talked about
 Redline being about the
  same.
  
  Any other quick tests anyone wants to see
 before we take the CPE down?
  
  Travis
  Microserv
  
  
  
 
  
  WISPA Wants You! Join today!
  http://signup.wispa.org/
  
 
  
  
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
  
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
  
  Archives:
 http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
  
  
  


  
 
 
  

  WISPA Wants You! Join today!
  http://signup.wispa.org/
  


  
 
 
  

  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
  
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
  
  Archives:
 http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
  
  
  


  
  
 
 
  WISPA Wants You! Join today!
  http://signup.wispa.org

Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

2008-12-15 Thread Marlon K. Schafer

 On to the CPE: This is one of the worst designs of a CPE that I have
 ever seen. The entire unit is made by Tranzeo and looks just like their
 normal 2.4 CPE. It has the bar of lights on the top showing Power, LAN,
 RSSI, etc. The mounting bracket is the L bracket that bolts to the
 back and has a U-bolt and clamp to hook to the pipe. The biggest problem
 is how the ethernet cable connects. It has the white cover plate that
 goes over the RJ-45 connector that has to be bolted to the back of the
 radio... the problem is, the pass-thru connector is not big enough to
 allow an already crimped RJ-45 cable to pass thru... meaning, you have
 to run the cable thru the white plastic thing, then crimp it, then plug
 it in, and then screw the nuts down holding the white cover. If you ever
 have to replace the radio with something different, you have to cut the
 cable and then re-crimp. Also, I can guarantee that water is going to
 get into the RJ-45 as it is on the back of the radio and the water will
 always be trying to get into the white cover and then will just flow
 right into the RJ-45. I have attached a picture that is 99% the same as
 this unit (except this unit is smaller than the picture). The other
 issue is the PoE injector that comes with the unit. This is the worst
 PoE that I have ever seen. I don't understand why they can't use a
 grounded PoE that doesn't require a separate ground wire. Use the ground
 built into the electrical wiring that is already there (like the
 PacWireless PoE units). Attached is a picture of the PoE that was 
 supplied.


I've been using the Tranzeo units for at least 3 years now.  They are all 
too often mounted right under the eve of the house.  So far no water issues.

As for the POE ground wire.  Ever open one up and look at what that ground 
wire plugs into?  I don't even bother with them as they don't go anywhere 
that connects to the unit outside!

sigh
marlon




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

2008-12-14 Thread reader
Don't I remember that there was a lot of hype about interoperability?

That's why many of us still stick to the old a/b/g stuff.   We hate the idea 
of getting orphaned.



insert witty tagline here

- Original Message - 
From: Drew Lentz d...@drewlentz.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org; Gino Villarini 
g...@aeronetpr.com
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 10:34 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65


 From what I understood from the guys at Tranzeo, just because they are
 manufactured both by Tranzeo and they are the same freq, there are hooks
 into all of the CPEs so that they are not cross-compatible. This might 
 need
 clarification, but I was sure that this was the case in speaking with 
 their
 guys. In other words, the Tranzeo / Redline CPEs work only with Redline, 
 the
 Tranzeo / Vecima CPEs work only with Vecima. The Tranzeo CPEs direct from
 Tranzeo will not work with either .. This was done so that end-users don't
 shop around to piece together the system.

 I might be wrong, but I remember when I heard this described I did the 
 whole
 dog tilting it's head sideways thing ...

 -drew


 On 12/13/08 5:32 PM, Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com wrote:



 it uses 802.03af PS ...

 My point was that you could use the low cost Vecima Bases with these
 CPEs ...

 or stick with el cheapo tranzeo units  Would you pay extra $50 for a
 quality cpe? I'll do

 Definetly Tranzeo does not manufacture this unit 


 Gino A. Villarini
 g...@aeronetpr.com
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145



 

 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Travis Johnson
 Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 7:21 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65


 U pricing is WAY, WAY different.

 Redline AP's are around $10k
 Vecima AP's are around $4k

 Redline CPE's are $300 each (even in 250 quantity)
 Vecima CPE's are less than $249

 And, I was told Tranzeo is making Redline's CPE as well? Could you send
 a picture of the Redline CPE?

 Travis
 Microserv

 Gino Villarini wrote:

 iirc one vendor told me the recline CPe could talk with the
 Vecima
 base


 The redline units are top notch quality construction, no tranzeo

 mickey mouse stuff.


 Afaik pricing is not much diferent


 Gino

 Sent from my Motorola Startac...


 On Dec 13, 2008, at 2:37 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net
 mailto:t...@ida.net  wrote:



 Hi,

 We received our Vecima trial kit (one AP and five CPE)
 on Thursday
 afternoon. We have not yet put it on a tower, as there
 were several
 issues with their software on the AP... but here's some
 info thus far:

 The base station is quite large. It measures
 approximately 14 inches
 tall x 8 inches wide x 6 inches thick. It weighs about
 25 pounds
 (seriously). It has an RJ-45 ethernet connector and an
 N-male
 connector on the bottom. (I was lead to believe they had
 omni, 90
 degree, 120 degree and connectorized versions, and I
 requested the
 120 unit, but instead got this with an LMR jumper and an
 MTI 120
 antenna).

 We began by getting into the AP and making some normal
 changes
 (downlink was set to 50%, so we changed it to 70%). Also
 the center
 frequency was set to 3.410 so we changed that to 3.650.
 We also
 changed to 7mhz channel size. We then applied and
 rebooted... and
 then we could no longer get into the radio
 configuration page
 (where we had just made all those changes). So we did a
 factory
 reset and tried again. Same thing. We opened a trouble
 ticket with
 Vecima the next morning, and they were able to reproduce
 the problem
 in their lab. Then about 3 hours later, another tech
 called back and
 told us we needed to upgrade the firmware (even though
 the first
 tech said we were running the latest). We upgraded and
 that fixed
 the problem... but then we had a new problem. The
 Allowed MAC
 address file somehow got corrupted... so they had to
 SSH into the
 base station and fix that file. (By the way, this AP is
 just running
 Linux 2.6.14 kernel). We were now able to make a
 connection to one
 of the CPE (after setting up the service classifiers,
 service flows,
 and adding a service flow to this MAC address). Making a
 link on our
 test bench (10 feet away), we had a -55ish signal...
 however, the
 ping times and speeds were terrible (2000ms and at the
 most 2Mbps).
 I am thinking it was because this is running OFDM and in
 close
 proximity, the signals bounce all over. Last, all three
 techs that I
 talked to at Vecima asked Do you have an NMS (network
 management
 server)? and I had to continually say no and then
 they would say
 oh... I don't know how to do this manually. One of the
 reasons we
 were testing this solution is that it did not require
 their NMS to
 function... however, even their tech support is pretty
 limited if
 you don't have it. Their NMS server is about $5,000

Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

2008-12-14 Thread D. Ryan Spott
That was the reason I went with 802.11 on Tranzeo in the first place.  
Yeah there are (insert 802.11 issues here) but at least I have the  
freedom to shop around.  I wish vendors would use ingenuity and value  
rather than silly lock-ins to keep you.


ryan
(writing this on an OSX machine... I pay more for more! Take heed  
vendors!)

On Dec 14, 2008, at 12:17 AM, rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote:

 Don't I remember that there was a lot of hype about interoperability?

 That's why many of us still stick to the old a/b/g stuff.   We hate  
 the idea
 of getting orphaned.


 
 insert witty tagline here

 - Original Message -
 From: Drew Lentz d...@drewlentz.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org; Gino Villarini
 g...@aeronetpr.com
 Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 10:34 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65


 From what I understood from the guys at Tranzeo, just because they  
 are
 manufactured both by Tranzeo and they are the same freq, there are  
 hooks
 into all of the CPEs so that they are not cross-compatible. This  
 might
 need
 clarification, but I was sure that this was the case in speaking with
 their
 guys. In other words, the Tranzeo / Redline CPEs work only with  
 Redline,
 the
 Tranzeo / Vecima CPEs work only with Vecima. The Tranzeo CPEs  
 direct from
 Tranzeo will not work with either .. This was done so that end- 
 users don't
 shop around to piece together the system.

 I might be wrong, but I remember when I heard this described I did  
 the
 whole
 dog tilting it's head sideways thing ...

 -drew


 On 12/13/08 5:32 PM, Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com wrote:



 it uses 802.03af PS ...

 My point was that you could use the low cost Vecima Bases with these
 CPEs ...

 or stick with el cheapo tranzeo units  Would you pay extra $50  
 for a
 quality cpe? I'll do

 Definetly Tranzeo does not manufacture this unit 


 Gino A. Villarini
 g...@aeronetpr.com
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145



 

 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- 
 boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Travis Johnson
 Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 7:21 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65


 U pricing is WAY, WAY different.

 Redline AP's are around $10k
 Vecima AP's are around $4k

 Redline CPE's are $300 each (even in 250 quantity)
 Vecima CPE's are less than $249

 And, I was told Tranzeo is making Redline's CPE as well? Could you  
 send
 a picture of the Redline CPE?

 Travis
 Microserv

 Gino Villarini wrote:

 iirc one vendor told me the recline CPe could talk with the
 Vecima
 base


 The redline units are top notch quality construction, no tranzeo

 mickey mouse stuff.


 Afaik pricing is not much diferent


 Gino

 Sent from my Motorola Startac...


 On Dec 13, 2008, at 2:37 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net
 mailto:t...@ida.net  wrote:



 Hi,

 We received our Vecima trial kit (one AP and five CPE)
 on Thursday
 afternoon. We have not yet put it on a tower, as there
 were several
 issues with their software on the AP... but here's some
 info thus far:

 The base station is quite large. It measures
 approximately 14 inches
 tall x 8 inches wide x 6 inches thick. It weighs about
 25 pounds
 (seriously). It has an RJ-45 ethernet connector and an
 N-male
 connector on the bottom. (I was lead to believe they had
 omni, 90
 degree, 120 degree and connectorized versions, and I
 requested the
 120 unit, but instead got this with an LMR jumper and an
 MTI 120
 antenna).

 We began by getting into the AP and making some normal
 changes
 (downlink was set to 50%, so we changed it to 70%). Also
 the center
 frequency was set to 3.410 so we changed that to 3.650.
 We also
 changed to 7mhz channel size. We then applied and
 rebooted... and
 then we could no longer get into the radio
 configuration page
 (where we had just made all those changes). So we did a
 factory
 reset and tried again. Same thing. We opened a trouble
 ticket with
 Vecima the next morning, and they were able to reproduce
 the problem
 in their lab. Then about 3 hours later, another tech
 called back and
 told us we needed to upgrade the firmware (even though
 the first
 tech said we were running the latest). We upgraded and
 that fixed
 the problem... but then we had a new problem. The
 Allowed MAC
 address file somehow got corrupted... so they had to
 SSH into the
 base station and fix that file. (By the way, this AP is
 just running
 Linux 2.6.14 kernel). We were now able to make a
 connection to one
 of the CPE (after setting up the service classifiers,
 service flows,
 and adding a service flow to this MAC address). Making a
 link on our
 test bench (10 feet away), we had a -55ish signal...
 however, the
 ping times and speeds were terrible (2000ms and at the
 most 2Mbps).
 I am thinking it was because this is running OFDM and in
 close
 proximity, the signals bounce all

Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

2008-12-14 Thread Mike Hammett
Everyone praised WiMAX because it would be cross compatible.  Welp, $10k AP 
later, you're still stuck with a proprietary system, you just have less 
money.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



--
From: Drew Lentz d...@drewlentz.com
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 12:34 AM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org; Gino Villarini 
g...@aeronetpr.com
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

From what I understood from the guys at Tranzeo, just because they are
 manufactured both by Tranzeo and they are the same freq, there are hooks
 into all of the CPEs so that they are not cross-compatible. This might 
 need
 clarification, but I was sure that this was the case in speaking with 
 their
 guys. In other words, the Tranzeo / Redline CPEs work only with Redline, 
 the
 Tranzeo / Vecima CPEs work only with Vecima. The Tranzeo CPEs direct from
 Tranzeo will not work with either .. This was done so that end-users don't
 shop around to piece together the system.

 I might be wrong, but I remember when I heard this described I did the 
 whole
 dog tilting it's head sideways thing ...

 -drew


 On 12/13/08 5:32 PM, Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com wrote:



 it uses 802.03af PS ...

 My point was that you could use the low cost Vecima Bases with these
 CPEs ...

 or stick with el cheapo tranzeo units  Would you pay extra $50 for a
 quality cpe? I'll do

 Definetly Tranzeo does not manufacture this unit 


 Gino A. Villarini
 g...@aeronetpr.com
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145



 

 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Travis Johnson
 Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 7:21 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65


 U pricing is WAY, WAY different.

 Redline AP's are around $10k
 Vecima AP's are around $4k

 Redline CPE's are $300 each (even in 250 quantity)
 Vecima CPE's are less than $249

 And, I was told Tranzeo is making Redline's CPE as well? Could you send
 a picture of the Redline CPE?

 Travis
 Microserv

 Gino Villarini wrote:

 iirc one vendor told me the recline CPe could talk with the
 Vecima
 base


 The redline units are top notch quality construction, no tranzeo

 mickey mouse stuff.


 Afaik pricing is not much diferent


 Gino

 Sent from my Motorola Startac...


 On Dec 13, 2008, at 2:37 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net
 mailto:t...@ida.net  wrote:



 Hi,

 We received our Vecima trial kit (one AP and five CPE)
 on Thursday
 afternoon. We have not yet put it on a tower, as there
 were several
 issues with their software on the AP... but here's some
 info thus far:

 The base station is quite large. It measures
 approximately 14 inches
 tall x 8 inches wide x 6 inches thick. It weighs about
 25 pounds
 (seriously). It has an RJ-45 ethernet connector and an
 N-male
 connector on the bottom. (I was lead to believe they had
 omni, 90
 degree, 120 degree and connectorized versions, and I
 requested the
 120 unit, but instead got this with an LMR jumper and an
 MTI 120
 antenna).

 We began by getting into the AP and making some normal
 changes
 (downlink was set to 50%, so we changed it to 70%). Also
 the center
 frequency was set to 3.410 so we changed that to 3.650.
 We also
 changed to 7mhz channel size. We then applied and
 rebooted... and
 then we could no longer get into the radio
 configuration page
 (where we had just made all those changes). So we did a
 factory
 reset and tried again. Same thing. We opened a trouble
 ticket with
 Vecima the next morning, and they were able to reproduce
 the problem
 in their lab. Then about 3 hours later, another tech
 called back and
 told us we needed to upgrade the firmware (even though
 the first
 tech said we were running the latest). We upgraded and
 that fixed
 the problem... but then we had a new problem. The
 Allowed MAC
 address file somehow got corrupted... so they had to
 SSH into the
 base station and fix that file. (By the way, this AP is
 just running
 Linux 2.6.14 kernel). We were now able to make a
 connection to one
 of the CPE (after setting up the service classifiers,
 service flows,
 and adding a service flow to this MAC address). Making a
 link on our
 test bench (10 feet away), we had a -55ish signal...
 however, the
 ping times and speeds were terrible (2000ms and at the
 most 2Mbps).
 I am thinking it was because this is running OFDM and in
 close
 proximity, the signals bounce all over. Last, all three
 techs that I
 talked to at Vecima asked Do you have an NMS (network
 management
 server)? and I had to continually say no and then
 they would say
 oh... I don't know how to do this manually. One of the
 reasons we
 were testing this solution is that it did not require
 their NMS to
 function... however, even their tech support is pretty
 limited if
 you don't have it. Their NMS server is about

Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

2008-12-14 Thread Blair Davis




rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote:

  Don't I remember that there was a lot of hype about interoperability?

That's why many of us still stick to the old a/b/g stuff.   We hate the idea 
of getting orphaned.
  


Right on! Some of us HAVE been orphaned!





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

2008-12-14 Thread George Rogato
So this stuff then is not really WiMAX, it;s just another proprietary 
system, right?

George

Blair Davis wrote:
 rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote:
 Don't I remember that there was a lot of hype about interoperability?

 That's why many of us still stick to the old a/b/g stuff.   We hate the idea 
 of getting orphaned.
   
 
 Right on!  Some of us HAVE been orphaned!
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 
  
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

2008-12-14 Thread Gino Villarini
Well its uses Wimax MAC, but ists not Wimax Forum Certified so the
manufactures don't have to comply with interoperability 


Gino A. Villarini
g...@aeronetpr.com
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of George Rogato
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 1:34 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

So this stuff then is not really WiMAX, it;s just another proprietary
system, right?

George

Blair Davis wrote:
 rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote:
 Don't I remember that there was a lot of hype about interoperability?

 That's why many of us still stick to the old a/b/g stuff.   We hate
the idea 
 of getting orphaned.
   
 
 Right on!  Some of us HAVE been orphaned!
 
 
 --
 --
 
 
 
 --
 --
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 --
 --
  
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

2008-12-14 Thread Jeff Ehman
We are going to test this for ourselves but it is our understanding that all 
3.65 WiMAX Forum Certified equipment is interoperable but only to a certain 
extent.  From what I understand, Redline Base Stations and Tranzeo CPE will 
work together but only on a best effort basis.  All QoS functionality is 
proprietary.  If you are just providing data services that should not be an 
issue though.

Once again, this is theory.  I do not know of anyone who has actually tried out 
a system using Redline Base Stations and another manufacturer's CPE.

-Jeff
General Manager
CTI
(773) 667-4585 x2509


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Gino Villarini
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 11:39 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

Well its uses Wimax MAC, but ists not Wimax Forum Certified so the
manufactures don't have to comply with interoperability


Gino A. Villarini
g...@aeronetpr.com
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of George Rogato
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 1:34 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

So this stuff then is not really WiMAX, it;s just another proprietary
system, right?

George

Blair Davis wrote:
 rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote:
 Don't I remember that there was a lot of hype about interoperability?

 That's why many of us still stick to the old a/b/g stuff.   We hate
the idea
 of getting orphaned.


 Right on!  Some of us HAVE been orphaned!


 --
 --



 --
 --
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 --
 --

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/



WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which 
it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential 
and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message 
is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for 
delivery of the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that 
any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us 
immediately by telephone at 630-344-1586.



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

2008-12-14 Thread Travis Johnson




Honestly, it would seem the best solution at this time would be to use
the Vecima Base stations with Redline CPE. :)

Travis
Microserv

Jeff Ehman wrote:

  We are going to test this for ourselves but it is our understanding that all 3.65 WiMAX Forum Certified equipment is interoperable but only to a certain extent.  From what I understand, Redline Base Stations and Tranzeo CPE will work together but only on a "best effort" basis.  All QoS functionality is proprietary.  If you are just providing data services that should not be an issue though.

Once again, this is theory.  I do not know of anyone who has actually tried out a system using Redline Base Stations and another manufacturer's CPE.

-Jeff
General Manager
CTI
(773) 667-4585 x2509


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 11:39 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

Well its uses Wimax MAC, but ists not Wimax Forum Certified so the
manufactures don't have to comply with interoperability


Gino A. Villarini
g...@aeronetpr.com
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of George Rogato
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 1:34 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

So this stuff then is not really WiMAX, it;s just another proprietary
system, right?

George

Blair Davis wrote:
  
  
rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote:


  Don't I remember that there was a lot of hype about interoperability?

That's why many of us still stick to the old a/b/g stuff.   We hate
  

  
  the idea
  
  

  of getting orphaned.

  

Right on!  Some of us HAVE been orphaned!


--
--



--
--
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
--
--

WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

  
  



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/



WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone at 630-344-1586.



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


  






WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

2008-12-14 Thread Gino Villarini
Jeff AFAIK there is no Wimax Forum 3.65 profile ... 


Gino A. Villarini
g...@aeronetpr.com
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jeff Ehman
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 1:55 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

We are going to test this for ourselves but it is our understanding that
all 3.65 WiMAX Forum Certified equipment is interoperable but only to a
certain extent.  From what I understand, Redline Base Stations and
Tranzeo CPE will work together but only on a best effort basis.  All
QoS functionality is proprietary.  If you are just providing data
services that should not be an issue though.

Once again, this is theory.  I do not know of anyone who has actually
tried out a system using Redline Base Stations and another
manufacturer's CPE.

-Jeff
General Manager
CTI
(773) 667-4585 x2509


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Gino Villarini
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 11:39 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

Well its uses Wimax MAC, but ists not Wimax Forum Certified so the
manufactures don't have to comply with interoperability


Gino A. Villarini
g...@aeronetpr.com
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of George Rogato
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 1:34 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

So this stuff then is not really WiMAX, it;s just another proprietary
system, right?

George

Blair Davis wrote:
 rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote:
 Don't I remember that there was a lot of hype about interoperability?

 That's why many of us still stick to the old a/b/g stuff.   We hate
the idea
 of getting orphaned.


 Right on!  Some of us HAVE been orphaned!


 --
 --



 --
 --
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 --
 --

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/



WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/



WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or
agent responsible for delivery of the message to the intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying
of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone at
630-344-1586.




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

2008-12-14 Thread Mike Hammett
It is the real WiMAX, not the hype of 70 megabits at 70 miles with any 
vendor you choose.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



--
From: George Rogato wi...@oregonfast.net
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 11:34 AM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

 So this stuff then is not really WiMAX, it;s just another proprietary
 system, right?

 George

 Blair Davis wrote:
 rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote:
 Don't I remember that there was a lot of hype about interoperability?

 That's why many of us still stick to the old a/b/g stuff.   We hate the 
 idea
 of getting orphaned.


 Right on!  Some of us HAVE been orphaned!


 



 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

2008-12-14 Thread Drew Lentz
Nuts! You beat me to it! Gino is absolutely right, first of all. There is no
defined standard yet that I have heard of either.

The interoperability of these devices, in theory, should be at a connection
and other basic function level. Charles Wu posted a great article on here
some months ago detailing the way it it all seems like its going. Basically,
if you have interoperable gear, it *will* work, you just wont have any of
the features and benefits of the system you are connecting to. I always
liken it to the Cisco CCX extensions for Wi-Fi. If you are on a Cisco
network, CCX gives you so much more power over the client and the ability to
manage them, but if you are running a Cisco 802.11 card on any other system,
it acts like any other Wi-Fi client.

I would really like someone to correct me if I am wrong from Tranzeo on
this. I am in no way trying to say something that is inaccurate, it is just
what my understanding of a conversation I had with them was.

-drew


On 12/14/08 12:54 PM, Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com wrote:

 Jeff AFAIK there is no Wimax Forum 3.65 profile ...
 
 
 Gino A. Villarini
 g...@aeronetpr.com
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
 
 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Jeff Ehman
 Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 1:55 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
 
 We are going to test this for ourselves but it is our understanding that
 all 3.65 WiMAX Forum Certified equipment is interoperable but only to a
 certain extent.  From what I understand, Redline Base Stations and
 Tranzeo CPE will work together but only on a best effort basis.  All
 QoS functionality is proprietary.  If you are just providing data
 services that should not be an issue though.
 
 Once again, this is theory.  I do not know of anyone who has actually
 tried out a system using Redline Base Stations and another
 manufacturer's CPE.
 
 -Jeff
 General Manager
 CTI
 (773) 667-4585 x2509
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Gino Villarini
 Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 11:39 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
 
 Well its uses Wimax MAC, but ists not Wimax Forum Certified so the
 manufactures don't have to comply with interoperability
 
 
 Gino A. Villarini
 g...@aeronetpr.com
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
 
 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of George Rogato
 Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 1:34 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
 
 So this stuff then is not really WiMAX, it;s just another proprietary
 system, right?
 
 George
 
 Blair Davis wrote:
 rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote:
 Don't I remember that there was a lot of hype about interoperability?
 
 That's why many of us still stick to the old a/b/g stuff.   We hate
 the idea
 of getting orphaned.
 
 
 Right on!  Some of us HAVE been orphaned!
 
 
 --
 --
 
 
 
 --
 --
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 --
 --
 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 
 
 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 
 
 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 
 
 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 
 
 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to
 which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged,
 confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the
 reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or
 agent responsible for delivery of the message to the intended recipient,
 you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying
 of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
 communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone

Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

2008-12-14 Thread Josh Luthman
I was told that Redlines's WiMax solution would be interoperable - but
that was a salesmen speaking.

On 12/14/08, Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com wrote:
 Well its uses Wimax MAC, but ists not Wimax Forum Certified so the
 manufactures don't have to comply with interoperability


 Gino A. Villarini
 g...@aeronetpr.com
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of George Rogato
 Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 1:34 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

 So this stuff then is not really WiMAX, it;s just another proprietary
 system, right?

 George

 Blair Davis wrote:
 rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote:
 Don't I remember that there was a lot of hype about interoperability?

 That's why many of us still stick to the old a/b/g stuff.   We hate
 the idea
 of getting orphaned.


 Right on!  Some of us HAVE been orphaned!


 --
 --



 --
 --
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 --
 --

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


 
 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



-- 
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
--- Henry Spencer



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

2008-12-14 Thread Charles Wu (CTI)
To add to Jeff point...WiMAX certification  interoperability is limited to a 
lowest common denominator -- for example, looking at the MAC, 
interoperability is only guaranteed at the BE level (so unless there's some 
level of AP / CPE manufacturer cooperation, most of those nifty QoS features 
disappear)

-Charles

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Jeff Ehman
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 11:55 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

We are going to test this for ourselves but it is our understanding that all 
3.65 WiMAX Forum Certified equipment is interoperable but only to a certain 
extent.  From what I understand, Redline Base Stations and Tranzeo CPE will 
work together but only on a best effort basis.  All QoS functionality is 
proprietary.  If you are just providing data services that should not be an 
issue though.

Once again, this is theory.  I do not know of anyone who has actually tried out 
a system using Redline Base Stations and another manufacturer's CPE.

-Jeff
General Manager
CTI
(773) 667-4585 x2509


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Gino Villarini
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 11:39 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

Well its uses Wimax MAC, but ists not Wimax Forum Certified so the
manufactures don't have to comply with interoperability


Gino A. Villarini
g...@aeronetpr.com
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of George Rogato
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 1:34 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

So this stuff then is not really WiMAX, it;s just another proprietary
system, right?

George

Blair Davis wrote:
 rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote:
 Don't I remember that there was a lot of hype about interoperability?

 That's why many of us still stick to the old a/b/g stuff.   We hate
the idea
 of getting orphaned.


 Right on!  Some of us HAVE been orphaned!


 --
 --



 --
 --
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 --
 --

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/



WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which 
it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential 
and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message 
is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for 
delivery of the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that 
any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us 
immediately by telephone at 630-344-1586.



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which 
it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential 
and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message 
is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for 
delivery of the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that 
any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us 
immediately by telephone at 630-344-1586

Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

2008-12-14 Thread Charles Wu (CTI)
I was told that Redlines's WiMax solution would be interoperable - but
that was a salesmen speaking.

They are...

At a base level

-Charles

This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which 
it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential 
and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message 
is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for 
delivery of the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that 
any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us 
immediately by telephone at 630-344-1586.



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

2008-12-14 Thread John Scrivner
My thoughts inline below:

On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net wrote:

  U pricing is WAY, WAY different.

 Redline AP's are around $10k
 Vecima AP's are around $4k


Redline has an FCC approved system with 3 - 120 degree sectors with a 3-way
splitter which allows for full 360 degree coverage now with one sector
controller  with upgrade path for more sector controllers as your needs
increase over time. Redline supports uplink sub-channelization which adds
about 15 db of increased receive sensitivity to your CPE to base station
link. I find the cost is justified for the Redline system and I have one
online that I am very happy with. I am moving my leased line connections to
WiMax with better speeds and erquivalent reliability. The ROI for this base
station ist less than 2.5 years now and will improve as I add more
customers. I feel very satisfied with the Redline system and am confident we
will add more Redline bases in the future.





 Redline CPE's are $300 each (even in 250 quantity)
 Vecima CPE's are less than $249



Redline CPEs are built like a tank. They have the Intel WiMax Ruby chipset
(the best available at any price). Future migration to 802.16e for this CPE
is a firmware flash. It is true that you have to buy 72 radios (not 250) to
get the $300 price point. They are well worth the money. I take a Redline
CPE in with me on sales calls. The quality helps me sell WiMax.. It is that
nice of a piece. It is the best quality CPE device I have used. It is very
similar to the quality look and feel of the Alvarion VL CPE radios.




 And, I was told Tranzeo is making Redline's CPE as well? Could you send a
 picture of the Redline CPE?


This is not true at all. Tranzeo and Redline CPEs are night and day
different from one another. The quality of the Redline CPE was a big part of
my decision to choose Redline as our WiMax platform. Nothing touches the
Intel Ruby chipset. It is the best going.
Scriv



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

2008-12-14 Thread Travis Johnson




John,

What are your thoughts about using the 3.65ghz band that has no
capabilities to handle any type of noise rejection? One of my big
concerns with 3.65ghz is spending a lot of money on base stations, NMS,
etc. and then having someone purchase a $3,000 LigoWave 3.65 point to
point link and shut my system down completely. I believe this to be a
_very_ real concern in this space.

I know the Vecima equipment is just a frequency change from their
3.5ghz equipment. I know equipment in that band has nothing to deal
with noise, because they are licensed frequencies and therefore don't
need to worry about interference. Do you have concerns about this? The
FCC has already said that problems will need to be "worked out", and
that they are not going to step in and do anything. It will NOT be a
first come first serve basis as many believe. 

Thoughts? Comments?

Travis
Microserv

John Scrivner wrote:

  My thoughts inline below:

On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net wrote:

  
  
 U pricing is WAY, WAY different.

Redline AP's are around $10k
Vecima AP's are around $4k


  
  
Redline has an FCC approved system with 3 - 120 degree sectors with a 3-way
splitter which allows for full 360 degree coverage now with one sector
controller  with upgrade path for more sector controllers as your needs
increase over time. Redline supports uplink sub-channelization which adds
about 15 db of increased receive sensitivity to your CPE to base station
link. I find the cost is justified for the Redline system and I have one
online that I am very happy with. I am moving my leased line connections to
WiMax with better speeds and erquivalent reliability. The ROI for this base
station ist less than 2.5 years now and will improve as I add more
customers. I feel very satisfied with the Redline system and am confident we
will add more Redline bases in the future.



  
  

Redline CPE's are $300 each (even in 250 quantity)
Vecima CPE's are less than $249


  
  

Redline CPEs are built like a tank. They have the Intel WiMax Ruby chipset
(the best available at any price). Future migration to 802.16e for this CPE
is a firmware flash. It is true that you have to buy 72 radios (not 250) to
get the $300 price point. They are well worth the money. I take a Redline
CPE in with me on sales calls. The quality helps me sell WiMax.. It is that
nice of a piece. It is the best quality CPE device I have used. It is very
similar to the quality look and feel of the Alvarion VL CPE radios.


  
  

And, I was told Tranzeo is making Redline's CPE as well? Could you send a
picture of the Redline CPE?


  
  
This is not true at all. Tranzeo and Redline CPEs are night and day
different from one another. The quality of the Redline CPE was a big part of
my decision to choose Redline as our WiMax platform. Nothing touches the
Intel Ruby chipset. It is the best going.
Scriv



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


  






WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

2008-12-14 Thread John Scrivner
I consider my reply to be of enough value that I am sending out on the WISPA
members list. You will see my reply there.
Scriv



On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:28 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net wrote:

  John,

 What are your thoughts about using the 3.65ghz band that has no
 capabilities to handle any type of noise rejection? One of my big concerns
 with 3.65ghz is spending a lot of money on base stations, NMS, etc. and then
 having someone purchase a $3,000 LigoWave 3.65 point to point link and shut
 my system down completely. I believe this to be a _very_ real concern in
 this space.

 I know the Vecima equipment is just a frequency change from their 3.5ghz
 equipment. I know equipment in that band has nothing to deal with noise,
 because they are licensed frequencies and therefore don't need to worry
 about interference. Do you have concerns about this? The FCC has already
 said that problems will need to be worked out, and that they are not going
 to step in and do anything. It will NOT be a first come first serve basis as
 many believe.

 Thoughts? Comments?

 Travis
 Microserv

 John Scrivner wrote:

 My thoughts inline below:

 On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net t...@ida.net 
 wrote:



   U pricing is WAY, WAY different.

 Redline AP's are around $10k
 Vecima AP's are around $4k



  Redline has an FCC approved system with 3 - 120 degree sectors with a 3-way
 splitter which allows for full 360 degree coverage now with one sector
 controller  with upgrade path for more sector controllers as your needs
 increase over time. Redline supports uplink sub-channelization which adds
 about 15 db of increased receive sensitivity to your CPE to base station
 link. I find the cost is justified for the Redline system and I have one
 online that I am very happy with. I am moving my leased line connections to
 WiMax with better speeds and erquivalent reliability. The ROI for this base
 station ist less than 2.5 years now and will improve as I add more
 customers. I feel very satisfied with the Redline system and am confident we
 will add more Redline bases in the future.





  Redline CPE's are $300 each (even in 250 quantity)
 Vecima CPE's are less than $249



  Redline CPEs are built like a tank. They have the Intel WiMax Ruby chipset
 (the best available at any price). Future migration to 802.16e for this CPE
 is a firmware flash. It is true that you have to buy 72 radios (not 250) to
 get the $300 price point. They are well worth the money. I take a Redline
 CPE in with me on sales calls. The quality helps me sell WiMax.. It is that
 nice of a piece. It is the best quality CPE device I have used. It is very
 similar to the quality look and feel of the Alvarion VL CPE radios.




  And, I was told Tranzeo is making Redline's CPE as well? Could you send a
 picture of the Redline CPE?



  This is not true at all. Tranzeo and Redline CPEs are night and day
 different from one another. The quality of the Redline CPE was a big part of
 my decision to choose Redline as our WiMax platform. Nothing touches the
 Intel Ruby chipset. It is the best going.
 Scriv


 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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






 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/

 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

2008-12-13 Thread Randy Cosby
Travis,

You've never had the pleasure of dealing with Tranzeo's ethernet 
connector?  They insist this is the most waterproof / weatherproof way 
they've found.  Even so, it is a pain in the rear, I agree.

Looking forward to seeing more test results.  Thanks for doing the 
product beta test and development for us :)

Randy


Travis Johnson wrote:
 Hi,

 We received our Vecima trial kit (one AP and five CPE) on Thursday 
 afternoon. We have not yet put it on a tower, as there were several 
 issues with their software on the AP... but here's some info thus far:

 The base station is quite large. It measures approximately 14 inches 
 tall x 8 inches wide x 6 inches thick. It weighs about 25 pounds 
 (seriously). It has an RJ-45 ethernet connector and an N-male 
 connector on the bottom. (I was lead to believe they had omni, 90 
 degree, 120 degree and connectorized versions, and I requested the 120 
 unit, but instead got this with an LMR jumper and an MTI 120 antenna).

 We began by getting into the AP and making some normal changes 
 (downlink was set to 50%, so we changed it to 70%). Also the center 
 frequency was set to 3.410 so we changed that to 3.650. We also 
 changed to 7mhz channel size. We then applied and rebooted... and then 
 we could no longer get into the radio configuration page (where we 
 had just made all those changes). So we did a factory reset and tried 
 again. Same thing. We opened a trouble ticket with Vecima the next 
 morning, and they were able to reproduce the problem in their lab. 
 Then about 3 hours later, another tech called back and told us we 
 needed to upgrade the firmware (even though the first tech said we 
 were running the latest). We upgraded and that fixed the problem... 
 but then we had a new problem. The Allowed MAC address file somehow 
 got corrupted... so they had to SSH into the base station and fix that 
 file. (By the way, this AP is just running Linux 2.6.14 kernel). We 
 were now able to make a connection to one of the CPE (after setting up 
 the service classifiers, service flows, and adding a service flow to 
 this MAC address). Making a link on our test bench (10 feet away), we 
 had a -55ish signal... however, the ping times and speeds were 
 terrible (2000ms and at the most 2Mbps). I am thinking it was because 
 this is running OFDM and in close proximity, the signals bounce all 
 over. Last, all three techs that I talked to at Vecima asked Do you 
 have an NMS (network management server)? and I had to continually say 
 no and then they would say oh... I don't know how to do this 
 manually. One of the reasons we were testing this solution is that it 
 did not require their NMS to function... however, even their tech 
 support is pretty limited if you don't have it. Their NMS server is 
 about $5,000 (but a single server will support an entire network, with 
 unlimited AP's and CPE).

 On to the CPE: This is one of the worst designs of a CPE that I have 
 ever seen. The entire unit is made by Tranzeo and looks just like 
 their normal 2.4 CPE. It has the bar of lights on the top showing 
 Power, LAN, RSSI, etc. The mounting bracket is the L bracket that 
 bolts to the back and has a U-bolt and clamp to hook to the pipe. The 
 biggest problem is how the ethernet cable connects. It has the white 
 cover plate that goes over the RJ-45 connector that has to be bolted 
 to the back of the radio... the problem is, the pass-thru connector is 
 not big enough to allow an already crimped RJ-45 cable to pass thru... 
 meaning, you have to run the cable thru the white plastic thing, then 
 crimp it, then plug it in, and then screw the nuts down holding the 
 white cover. If you ever have to replace the radio with something 
 different, you have to cut the cable and then re-crimp. Also, I can 
 guarantee that water is going to get into the RJ-45 as it is on the 
 back of the radio and the water will always be trying to get into the 
 white cover and then will just flow right into the RJ-45. I have 
 attached a picture that is 99% the same as this unit (except this unit 
 is smaller than the picture). The other issue is the PoE injector that 
 comes with the unit. This is the worst PoE that I have ever seen. I 
 don't understand why they can't use a grounded PoE that doesn't 
 require a separate ground wire. Use the ground built into the 
 electrical wiring that is already there (like the PacWireless PoE 
 units). Attached is a picture of the PoE that was supplied.

 I will be testing the speeds and range this Monday (assuming the 
 weather is better... we got 6 of snow and 40MPH winds last night). I 
 will post more results as I have them. At this point, I am not really 
 impressed with a $4,000 AP that's just running Linux.

 Travis
 Microserv
 



 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

2008-12-13 Thread D. Ryan Spott
I have comments inline... At least for the Tranzeo Unit :)

D. Ryan Spott
rsp...@cspott.com



On Dec 13, 2008, at 10:35 AM, Travis Johnson wrote:

 Hi,

 We received our Vecima trial kit (one AP and five CPE) on Thursday  
 afternoon. We have not yet put it on a tower, as there were several  
 issues with their software on the AP... but here's some info thus far:

 The base station is quite large. It measures approximately 14 inches  
 tall x 8 inches wide x 6 inches thick. It weighs about 25 pounds  
 (seriously). It has an RJ-45 ethernet connector and an N-male  
 connector on the bottom. (I was lead to believe they had omni, 90  
 degree, 120 degree and connectorized versions, and I requested the  
 120 unit, but instead got this with an LMR jumper and an MTI 120  
 antenna).

 We began by getting into the AP and making some normal changes  
 (downlink was set to 50%, so we changed it to 70%). Also the center  
 frequency was set to 3.410 so we changed that to 3.650. We also  
 changed to 7mhz channel size. We then applied and rebooted... and  
 then we could no longer get into the radio configuration page  
 (where we had just made all those changes). So we did a factory  
 reset and tried again. Same thing. We opened a trouble ticket with  
 Vecima the next morning, and they were able to reproduce the problem  
 in their lab. Then about 3 hours later, another tech called back and  
 told us we needed to upgrade the firmware (even though the first  
 tech said we were running the latest). We upgraded and that fixed  
 the problem... but then we had a new problem. The Allowed MAC  
 address file somehow got corrupted... so they had to SSH into the  
 base station and fix that file. (By the way, this AP is just running  
 Linux 2.6.14 kernel). We were now able to make a connection to one  
 of the CPE (after setting up the service classifiers, service flows,  
 and adding a service flow to this MAC address). Making a link on our  
 test bench (10 feet away), we had a -55ish signal... however, the  
 ping times and speeds were terrible (2000ms and at the most 2Mbps).  
 I am thinking it was because this is running OFDM and in close  
 proximity, the signals bounce all over. Last, all three techs that I  
 talked to at Vecima asked Do you have an NMS (network management  
 server)? and I had to continually say no and then they would say  
 oh... I don't know how to do this manually. One of the reasons we  
 were testing this solution is that it did not require their NMS to  
 function... however, even their tech support is pretty limited if  
 you don't have it. Their NMS server is about $5,000 (but a single  
 server will support an entire network, with unlimited AP's and CPE).

 On to the CPE: This is one of the worst designs of a CPE that I have  
 ever seen.
Eh, it's OK. Back when I started (3 years ago) it was a heck-of-a-lot  
better than the other inexpensive CPE that was out. It also passes my  
wife will a woman allow that on the house test. One of the CPE (not  
Tranzeo) that I looked at actually had a place duct tape here line  
in their instructions!

 The entire unit is made by Tranzeo and looks just like their normal  
 2.4 CPE. It has the bar of lights on the top showing Power, LAN,  
 RSSI, etc. The mounting bracket is the L bracket that bolts to the  
 back and has a U-bolt and clamp to hook to the pipe.
Yes, all of their CPE is like this. They make one design and really  
stick to it. The picture you have on the left shows the old design.  
The new one has a set of screws holding it together. I like this newer  
design a little better.

 The biggest problem is how the ethernet cable connects. It has the  
 white cover plate that goes over the RJ-45 connector that has to be  
 bolted to the back of the radio... the problem is, the pass-thru  
 connector is not big enough to allow an already crimped RJ-45 cable  
 to pass thru... meaning, you have to run the cable thru the white  
 plastic thing, then crimp it, then plug it in, and then screw the  
 nuts down holding the white cover.
I totally agree, this is a TOTAL pain in the A$$. How much more would  
it cost for a decent pass through connector.. uh.. pennies at volume.  
Get with it Tranzeo! Even the telcos have figured this out with regard  
to FIOS connections and the glands they go through.

 If you ever have to replace the radio with something different, you  
 have to cut the cable and then re-crimp.
Tranzeo says (fictitiously) Well, why would you want to replace that  
with anything but Tranzeo?  *sigh*

 Also, I can guarantee that water is going to get into the RJ-45 as  
 it is on the back of the radio and the water will always be trying  
 to get into the white cover and then will just flow right into the  
 RJ-45. I have attached a picture that is 99% the same as this unit  
 (except this unit is smaller than the picture).
Oh! you have the old SL2 looking module. Hopefully they have made that  
into a smooth cover. Here in 

Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

2008-12-13 Thread Jack Unger




One comment regarding the bench testing of any radio. 

Too much signal is just as bad as too little signal because an
overloaded receiver will create errors just like a receiver that
doesn't get enough signal. 

When bench testing, I advise either placing the units several rooms
apart (to benefit from the attenuation of the walls), turning the
transmitter power down on both ends (whenever possible) or using
attenuators (at least on one end) between antenna connector and
antenna. 

jack


Travis Johnson wrote:
Hi,
  
  
We received our Vecima "trial" kit (one AP and five CPE) on Thursday
afternoon. We have not yet put it on a tower, as there were several
issues with their software on the AP... but here's some info thus far:
  
  
The base station is quite large. It measures approximately 14 inches
tall x 8 inches wide x 6 inches thick. It weighs about 25 pounds
(seriously). It has an RJ-45 ethernet connector and an N-male connector
on the bottom. (I was lead to believe they had omni, 90 degree, 120
degree and connectorized versions, and I requested the 120 unit, but
instead got this with an LMR jumper and an MTI 120 antenna).
  
  
We began by getting into the AP and making some "normal" changes
(downlink was set to 50%, so we changed it to 70%). Also the center
frequency was set to 3.410 so we changed that to 3.650. We also changed
to 7mhz channel size. We then applied and rebooted... and then we could
no longer get into the "radio" configuration page (where we had just
made all those changes). So we did a factory reset and tried again.
Same thing. We opened a trouble ticket with Vecima the next morning,
and they were able to reproduce the problem in their lab. Then about 3
hours later, another tech called back and told us we needed to upgrade
the firmware (even though the first tech said we were running the
latest). We upgraded and that fixed the problem... but then we had a
new problem. The "Allowed MAC address" file somehow got corrupted... so
they had to SSH into the base station and fix that file. (By the way,
this AP is just running Linux 2.6.14 kernel). We were now able to make
a connection to one of the CPE (after setting up the service
classifiers, service flows, and adding a service flow to this MAC
address). Making a link on our test bench (10 feet away), we had a
-55ish signal... however, the ping times and speeds were terrible
(2000ms and at the most 2Mbps). I am thinking it was because this is
running OFDM and in close proximity, the signals bounce all over. Last,
all three techs that I talked to at Vecima asked "Do you have an NMS
(network management server)?" and I had to continually say "no" and
then they would say "oh... I don't know how to do this manually". One
of the reasons we were testing this solution is that it did not require
their NMS to function... however, even their tech support is pretty
limited if you don't have it. Their NMS server is about $5,000 (but a
single server will support an entire network, with unlimited AP's and
CPE).
  
  
On to the CPE: This is one of the worst designs of a CPE that I have
ever seen. The entire unit is made by Tranzeo and looks just like their
normal 2.4 CPE. It has the bar of lights on the top showing Power, LAN,
RSSI, etc. The mounting bracket is the "L" bracket that bolts to the
back and has a U-bolt and clamp to hook to the pipe. The biggest
problem is how the ethernet cable connects. It has the white cover
plate that goes over the RJ-45 connector that has to be bolted to the
back of the radio... the problem is, the pass-thru connector is not big
enough to allow an already crimped RJ-45 cable to pass thru... meaning,
you have to run the cable thru the white plastic thing, then crimp it,
then plug it in, and then screw the nuts down holding the white cover.
If you ever have to replace the radio with something different, you
have to cut the cable and then re-crimp. Also, I can guarantee that
water is going to get into the RJ-45 as it is on the back of the radio
and the water will always be trying to get into the white cover and
then will just "flow" right into the RJ-45. I have attached a picture
that is 99% the same as this unit (except this unit is smaller than the
picture). The other issue is the PoE injector that comes with the unit.
This is the worst PoE that I have ever seen. I don't understand why
they can't use a grounded PoE that doesn't require a separate ground
wire. Use the ground built into the electrical wiring that is already
there (like the PacWireless PoE units). Attached is a picture of the
PoE that was supplied.
  
  
I will be testing the speeds and range this Monday (assuming the
weather is better... we got 6" of snow and 40MPH winds last night). I
will post more results as I have them. At this point, I am not really
impressed with a $4,000 AP that's just running Linux.
  
  
Travis
  
Microserv
  
  




WISPA Wants You! Join today!

Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

2008-12-13 Thread Mike Hammett
Could the StarTac even text message?  IIRC, that was the first digital 
phone, at least by Moto.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



--
From: Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 2:05 PM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Cc: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

 iirc one vendor told me the recline CPe could talk with the Vecima
 base


 The redline units are top notch quality construction, no tranzeo
 mickey mouse stuff.


 Afaik pricing is not much diferent


 Gino

 Sent from my Motorola Startac...


 On Dec 13, 2008, at 2:37 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net wrote:

 Hi,

 We received our Vecima trial kit (one AP and five CPE) on Thursday
 afternoon. We have not yet put it on a tower, as there were several
 issues with their software on the AP... but here's some info thus far:

 The base station is quite large. It measures approximately 14 inches
 tall x 8 inches wide x 6 inches thick. It weighs about 25 pounds
 (seriously). It has an RJ-45 ethernet connector and an N-male
 connector on the bottom. (I was lead to believe they had omni, 90
 degree, 120 degree and connectorized versions, and I requested the
 120 unit, but instead got this with an LMR jumper and an MTI 120
 antenna).

 We began by getting into the AP and making some normal changes
 (downlink was set to 50%, so we changed it to 70%). Also the center
 frequency was set to 3.410 so we changed that to 3.650. We also
 changed to 7mhz channel size. We then applied and rebooted... and
 then we could no longer get into the radio configuration page
 (where we had just made all those changes). So we did a factory
 reset and tried again. Same thing. We opened a trouble ticket with
 Vecima the next morning, and they were able to reproduce the problem
 in their lab. Then about 3 hours later, another tech called back and
 told us we needed to upgrade the firmware (even though the first
 tech said we were running the latest). We upgraded and that fixed
 the problem... but then we had a new problem. The Allowed MAC
 address file somehow got corrupted... so they had to SSH into the
 base station and fix that file. (By the way, this AP is just running
 Linux 2.6.14 kernel). We were now able to make a connection to one
 of the CPE (after setting up the service classifiers, service flows,
 and adding a service flow to this MAC address). Making a link on our
 test bench (10 feet away), we had a -55ish signal... however, the
 ping times and speeds were terrible (2000ms and at the most 2Mbps).
 I am thinking it was because this is running OFDM and in close
 proximity, the signals bounce all over. Last, all three techs that I
 talked to at Vecima asked Do you have an NMS (network management
 server)? and I had to continually say no and then they would say
 oh... I don't know how to do this manually. One of the reasons we
 were testing this solution is that it did not require their NMS to
 function... however, even their tech support is pretty limited if
 you don't have it. Their NMS server is about $5,000 (but a single
 server will support an entire network, with unlimited AP's and CPE).

 On to the CPE: This is one of the worst designs of a CPE that I have
 ever seen. The entire unit is made by Tranzeo and looks just like
 their normal 2.4 CPE. It has the bar of lights on the top showing
 Power, LAN, RSSI, etc. The mounting bracket is the L bracket that
 bolts to the back and has a U-bolt and clamp to hook to the pipe.
 The biggest problem is how the ethernet cable connects. It has the
 white cover plate that goes over the RJ-45 connector that has to be
 bolted to the back of the radio... the problem is, the pass-thru
 connector is not big enough to allow an already crimped RJ-45 cable
 to pass thru... meaning, you have to run the cable thru the white
 plastic thing, then crimp it, then plug it in, and then screw the
 nuts down holding the white cover. If you ever have to replace the
 radio with something different, you have to cut the cable and then
 re-crimp. Also, I can guarantee that water is going to get into the
 RJ-45 as it is on the back of the radio and the water will always be
 trying to get into the white cover and then will just flow right
 into the RJ-45. I have attached a picture that is 99% the same as
 this unit (except this unit is smaller than the picture). The other
 issue is the PoE injector that comes with the unit. This is the
 worst PoE that I have ever seen. I don't understand why they can't
 use a grounded PoE that doesn't require a separate ground wire. Use
 the ground built into the electrical wiring that is already there
 (like the PacWireless PoE units). Attached is a picture of the PoE
 that was supplied.

 I will be testing the speeds and range this Monday (assuming the
 weather is better... we got 6 of snow and 40MPH winds last night).
 I will post more results as I

Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

2008-12-13 Thread Josh Luthman
When we used Tranzeos that very waterproof system is the worst
system I have seen.

It may have been our installs or the weather, but that cover is
horrible.  Coax seal did a good job of fixing those issues, however,
it made it additionally difficult.

On 12/13/08, Randy Cosby dco...@infowest.com wrote:
 Travis,

 You've never had the pleasure of dealing with Tranzeo's ethernet
 connector?  They insist this is the most waterproof / weatherproof way
 they've found.  Even so, it is a pain in the rear, I agree.

 Looking forward to seeing more test results.  Thanks for doing the
 product beta test and development for us :)

 Randy


 Travis Johnson wrote:
 Hi,

 We received our Vecima trial kit (one AP and five CPE) on Thursday
 afternoon. We have not yet put it on a tower, as there were several
 issues with their software on the AP... but here's some info thus far:

 The base station is quite large. It measures approximately 14 inches
 tall x 8 inches wide x 6 inches thick. It weighs about 25 pounds
 (seriously). It has an RJ-45 ethernet connector and an N-male
 connector on the bottom. (I was lead to believe they had omni, 90
 degree, 120 degree and connectorized versions, and I requested the 120
 unit, but instead got this with an LMR jumper and an MTI 120 antenna).

 We began by getting into the AP and making some normal changes
 (downlink was set to 50%, so we changed it to 70%). Also the center
 frequency was set to 3.410 so we changed that to 3.650. We also
 changed to 7mhz channel size. We then applied and rebooted... and then
 we could no longer get into the radio configuration page (where we
 had just made all those changes). So we did a factory reset and tried
 again. Same thing. We opened a trouble ticket with Vecima the next
 morning, and they were able to reproduce the problem in their lab.
 Then about 3 hours later, another tech called back and told us we
 needed to upgrade the firmware (even though the first tech said we
 were running the latest). We upgraded and that fixed the problem...
 but then we had a new problem. The Allowed MAC address file somehow
 got corrupted... so they had to SSH into the base station and fix that
 file. (By the way, this AP is just running Linux 2.6.14 kernel). We
 were now able to make a connection to one of the CPE (after setting up
 the service classifiers, service flows, and adding a service flow to
 this MAC address). Making a link on our test bench (10 feet away), we
 had a -55ish signal... however, the ping times and speeds were
 terrible (2000ms and at the most 2Mbps). I am thinking it was because
 this is running OFDM and in close proximity, the signals bounce all
 over. Last, all three techs that I talked to at Vecima asked Do you
 have an NMS (network management server)? and I had to continually say
 no and then they would say oh... I don't know how to do this
 manually. One of the reasons we were testing this solution is that it
 did not require their NMS to function... however, even their tech
 support is pretty limited if you don't have it. Their NMS server is
 about $5,000 (but a single server will support an entire network, with
 unlimited AP's and CPE).

 On to the CPE: This is one of the worst designs of a CPE that I have
 ever seen. The entire unit is made by Tranzeo and looks just like
 their normal 2.4 CPE. It has the bar of lights on the top showing
 Power, LAN, RSSI, etc. The mounting bracket is the L bracket that
 bolts to the back and has a U-bolt and clamp to hook to the pipe. The
 biggest problem is how the ethernet cable connects. It has the white
 cover plate that goes over the RJ-45 connector that has to be bolted
 to the back of the radio... the problem is, the pass-thru connector is
 not big enough to allow an already crimped RJ-45 cable to pass thru...
 meaning, you have to run the cable thru the white plastic thing, then
 crimp it, then plug it in, and then screw the nuts down holding the
 white cover. If you ever have to replace the radio with something
 different, you have to cut the cable and then re-crimp. Also, I can
 guarantee that water is going to get into the RJ-45 as it is on the
 back of the radio and the water will always be trying to get into the
 white cover and then will just flow right into the RJ-45. I have
 attached a picture that is 99% the same as this unit (except this unit
 is smaller than the picture). The other issue is the PoE injector that
 comes with the unit. This is the worst PoE that I have ever seen. I
 don't understand why they can't use a grounded PoE that doesn't
 require a separate ground wire. Use the ground built into the
 electrical wiring that is already there (like the PacWireless PoE
 units). Attached is a picture of the PoE that was supplied.

 I will be testing the speeds and range this Monday (assuming the
 weather is better... we got 6 of snow and 40MPH winds last night). I
 will post more results as I have them. At this point, I am not really
 impressed with a $4,000 AP that's just 

Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

2008-12-13 Thread Gino Villarini
Actually it's a dynatac 5000 :-)

Sent from my Motorola Startac...


On Dec 13, 2008, at 4:18 PM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net  
wrote:

 Could the StarTac even text message?  IIRC, that was the first digital
 phone, at least by Moto.


 -
 Mike Hammett
 Intelligent Computing Solutions
 http://www.ics-il.com



 --
 From: Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com
 Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 2:05 PM
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Cc: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

 iirc one vendor told me the recline CPe could talk with the Vecima
 base


 The redline units are top notch quality construction, no tranzeo
 mickey mouse stuff.


 Afaik pricing is not much diferent


 Gino

 Sent from my Motorola Startac...


 On Dec 13, 2008, at 2:37 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net wrote:

 Hi,

 We received our Vecima trial kit (one AP and five CPE) on Thursday
 afternoon. We have not yet put it on a tower, as there were several
 issues with their software on the AP... but here's some info thus  
 far:

 The base station is quite large. It measures approximately 14 inches
 tall x 8 inches wide x 6 inches thick. It weighs about 25 pounds
 (seriously). It has an RJ-45 ethernet connector and an N-male
 connector on the bottom. (I was lead to believe they had omni, 90
 degree, 120 degree and connectorized versions, and I requested the
 120 unit, but instead got this with an LMR jumper and an MTI 120
 antenna).

 We began by getting into the AP and making some normal changes
 (downlink was set to 50%, so we changed it to 70%). Also the center
 frequency was set to 3.410 so we changed that to 3.650. We also
 changed to 7mhz channel size. We then applied and rebooted... and
 then we could no longer get into the radio configuration page
 (where we had just made all those changes). So we did a factory
 reset and tried again. Same thing. We opened a trouble ticket with
 Vecima the next morning, and they were able to reproduce the problem
 in their lab. Then about 3 hours later, another tech called back and
 told us we needed to upgrade the firmware (even though the first
 tech said we were running the latest). We upgraded and that fixed
 the problem... but then we had a new problem. The Allowed MAC
 address file somehow got corrupted... so they had to SSH into the
 base station and fix that file. (By the way, this AP is just running
 Linux 2.6.14 kernel). We were now able to make a connection to one
 of the CPE (after setting up the service classifiers, service flows,
 and adding a service flow to this MAC address). Making a link on our
 test bench (10 feet away), we had a -55ish signal... however, the
 ping times and speeds were terrible (2000ms and at the most 2Mbps).
 I am thinking it was because this is running OFDM and in close
 proximity, the signals bounce all over. Last, all three techs that I
 talked to at Vecima asked Do you have an NMS (network management
 server)? and I had to continually say no and then they would say
 oh... I don't know how to do this manually. One of the reasons we
 were testing this solution is that it did not require their NMS to
 function... however, even their tech support is pretty limited if
 you don't have it. Their NMS server is about $5,000 (but a single
 server will support an entire network, with unlimited AP's and CPE).

 On to the CPE: This is one of the worst designs of a CPE that I have
 ever seen. The entire unit is made by Tranzeo and looks just like
 their normal 2.4 CPE. It has the bar of lights on the top showing
 Power, LAN, RSSI, etc. The mounting bracket is the L bracket that
 bolts to the back and has a U-bolt and clamp to hook to the pipe.
 The biggest problem is how the ethernet cable connects. It has the
 white cover plate that goes over the RJ-45 connector that has to be
 bolted to the back of the radio... the problem is, the pass-thru
 connector is not big enough to allow an already crimped RJ-45 cable
 to pass thru... meaning, you have to run the cable thru the white
 plastic thing, then crimp it, then plug it in, and then screw the
 nuts down holding the white cover. If you ever have to replace the
 radio with something different, you have to cut the cable and then
 re-crimp. Also, I can guarantee that water is going to get into the
 RJ-45 as it is on the back of the radio and the water will always be
 trying to get into the white cover and then will just flow right
 into the RJ-45. I have attached a picture that is 99% the same as
 this unit (except this unit is smaller than the picture). The other
 issue is the PoE injector that comes with the unit. This is the
 worst PoE that I have ever seen. I don't understand why they can't
 use a grounded PoE that doesn't require a separate ground wire. Use
 the ground built into the electrical wiring that is already there
 (like the PacWireless PoE units). Attached is a picture of the PoE
 that was supplied.

 I

Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

2008-12-13 Thread Travis Johnson




No... I've never had that experience... and I probably won't... it
seems really "cheap"... and having to re-crimp if you change radio type
makes it even worse. :(

Travis
Microserv

Randy Cosby wrote:

  Travis,

You've never had the pleasure of dealing with Tranzeo's ethernet 
connector?  They insist this is the most waterproof / weatherproof way 
they've found.  Even so, it is a pain in the rear, I agree.

Looking forward to seeing more test results.  Thanks for doing the 
product beta test and development for us :)

Randy


Travis Johnson wrote:
  
  
Hi,

We received our Vecima "trial" kit (one AP and five CPE) on Thursday 
afternoon. We have not yet put it on a tower, as there were several 
issues with their software on the AP... but here's some info thus far:

The base station is quite large. It measures approximately 14 inches 
tall x 8 inches wide x 6 inches thick. It weighs about 25 pounds 
(seriously). It has an RJ-45 ethernet connector and an N-male 
connector on the bottom. (I was lead to believe they had omni, 90 
degree, 120 degree and connectorized versions, and I requested the 120 
unit, but instead got this with an LMR jumper and an MTI 120 antenna).

We began by getting into the AP and making some "normal" changes 
(downlink was set to 50%, so we changed it to 70%). Also the center 
frequency was set to 3.410 so we changed that to 3.650. We also 
changed to 7mhz channel size. We then applied and rebooted... and then 
we could no longer get into the "radio" configuration page (where we 
had just made all those changes). So we did a factory reset and tried 
again. Same thing. We opened a trouble ticket with Vecima the next 
morning, and they were able to reproduce the problem in their lab. 
Then about 3 hours later, another tech called back and told us we 
needed to upgrade the firmware (even though the first tech said we 
were running the latest). We upgraded and that fixed the problem... 
but then we had a new problem. The "Allowed MAC address" file somehow 
got corrupted... so they had to SSH into the base station and fix that 
file. (By the way, this AP is just running Linux 2.6.14 kernel). We 
were now able to make a connection to one of the CPE (after setting up 
the service classifiers, service flows, and adding a service flow to 
this MAC address). Making a link on our test bench (10 feet away), we 
had a -55ish signal... however, the ping times and speeds were 
terrible (2000ms and at the most 2Mbps). I am thinking it was because 
this is running OFDM and in close proximity, the signals bounce all 
over. Last, all three techs that I talked to at Vecima asked "Do you 
have an NMS (network management server)?" and I had to continually say 
"no" and then they would say "oh... I don't know how to do this 
manually". One of the reasons we were testing this solution is that it 
did not require their NMS to function... however, even their tech 
support is pretty limited if you don't have it. Their NMS server is 
about $5,000 (but a single server will support an entire network, with 
unlimited AP's and CPE).

On to the CPE: This is one of the worst designs of a CPE that I have 
ever seen. The entire unit is made by Tranzeo and looks just like 
their normal 2.4 CPE. It has the bar of lights on the top showing 
Power, LAN, RSSI, etc. The mounting bracket is the "L" bracket that 
bolts to the back and has a U-bolt and clamp to hook to the pipe. The 
biggest problem is how the ethernet cable connects. It has the white 
cover plate that goes over the RJ-45 connector that has to be bolted 
to the back of the radio... the problem is, the pass-thru connector is 
not big enough to allow an already crimped RJ-45 cable to pass thru... 
meaning, you have to run the cable thru the white plastic thing, then 
crimp it, then plug it in, and then screw the nuts down holding the 
white cover. If you ever have to replace the radio with something 
different, you have to cut the cable and then re-crimp. Also, I can 
guarantee that water is going to get into the RJ-45 as it is on the 
back of the radio and the water will always be trying to get into the 
white cover and then will just "flow" right into the RJ-45. I have 
attached a picture that is 99% the same as this unit (except this unit 
is smaller than the picture). The other issue is the PoE injector that 
comes with the unit. This is the worst PoE that I have ever seen. I 
don't understand why they can't use a grounded PoE that doesn't 
require a separate ground wire. Use the ground built into the 
electrical wiring that is already there (like the PacWireless PoE 
units). Attached is a picture of the PoE that was supplied.

I will be testing the speeds and range this Monday (assuming the 
weather is better... we got 6" of snow and 40MPH winds last night). I 
will post more results as I have them. At this point, I am not really 
impressed with a $4,000 AP that's just running Linux.

Travis
Microserv

Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

2008-12-13 Thread Travis Johnson




U pricing is WAY, WAY different.

Redline AP's are around $10k
Vecima AP's are around $4k

Redline CPE's are $300 each (even in 250 quantity)
Vecima CPE's are less than $249 

And, I was told Tranzeo is making Redline's CPE as well? Could you send
a picture of the Redline CPE?

Travis
Microserv

Gino Villarini wrote:

  iirc one vendor told me the recline CPe could talk with the Vecima  
base


The redline units are top notch quality construction, no tranzeo  
mickey mouse stuff.


Afaik pricing is not much diferent


Gino

Sent from my Motorola Startac...


On Dec 13, 2008, at 2:37 PM, "Travis Johnson" t...@ida.net wrote:

  
  
Hi,

We received our Vecima "trial" kit (one AP and five CPE) on Thursday  
afternoon. We have not yet put it on a tower, as there were several  
issues with their software on the AP... but here's some info thus far:

The base station is quite large. It measures approximately 14 inches  
tall x 8 inches wide x 6 inches thick. It weighs about 25 pounds  
(seriously). It has an RJ-45 ethernet connector and an N-male  
connector on the bottom. (I was lead to believe they had omni, 90  
degree, 120 degree and connectorized versions, and I requested the  
120 unit, but instead got this with an LMR jumper and an MTI 120  
antenna).

We began by getting into the AP and making some "normal" changes  
(downlink was set to 50%, so we changed it to 70%). Also the center  
frequency was set to 3.410 so we changed that to 3.650. We also  
changed to 7mhz channel size. We then applied and rebooted... and  
then we could no longer get into the "radio" configuration page  
(where we had just made all those changes). So we did a factory  
reset and tried again. Same thing. We opened a trouble ticket with  
Vecima the next morning, and they were able to reproduce the problem  
in their lab. Then about 3 hours later, another tech called back and  
told us we needed to upgrade the firmware (even though the first  
tech said we were running the latest). We upgraded and that fixed  
the problem... but then we had a new problem. The "Allowed MAC  
address" file somehow got corrupted... so they had to SSH into the  
base station and fix that file. (By the way, this AP is just running  
Linux 2.6.14 kernel). We were now able to make a connection to one  
of the CPE (after setting up the service classifiers, service flows,  
and adding a service flow to this MAC address). Making a link on our  
test bench (10 feet away), we had a -55ish signal... however, the  
ping times and speeds were terrible (2000ms and at the most 2Mbps).  
I am thinking it was because this is running OFDM and in close  
proximity, the signals bounce all over. Last, all three techs that I  
talked to at Vecima asked "Do you have an NMS (network management  
server)?" and I had to continually say "no" and then they would say  
"oh... I don't know how to do this manually". One of the reasons we  
were testing this solution is that it did not require their NMS to  
function... however, even their tech support is pretty limited if  
you don't have it. Their NMS server is about $5,000 (but a single  
server will support an entire network, with unlimited AP's and CPE).

On to the CPE: This is one of the worst designs of a CPE that I have  
ever seen. The entire unit is made by Tranzeo and looks just like  
their normal 2.4 CPE. It has the bar of lights on the top showing  
Power, LAN, RSSI, etc. The mounting bracket is the "L" bracket that  
bolts to the back and has a U-bolt and clamp to hook to the pipe.  
The biggest problem is how the ethernet cable connects. It has the  
white cover plate that goes over the RJ-45 connector that has to be  
bolted to the back of the radio... the problem is, the pass-thru  
connector is not big enough to allow an already crimped RJ-45 cable  
to pass thru... meaning, you have to run the cable thru the white  
plastic thing, then crimp it, then plug it in, and then screw the  
nuts down holding the white cover. If you ever have to replace the  
radio with something different, you have to cut the cable and then  
re-crimp. Also, I can guarantee that water is going to get into the  
RJ-45 as it is on the back of the radio and the water will always be  
trying to get into the white cover and then will just "flow" right  
into the RJ-45. I have attached a picture that is 99% the same as  
this unit (except this unit is smaller than the picture). The other  
issue is the PoE injector that comes with the unit. This is the  
worst PoE that I have ever seen. I don't understand why they can't  
use a grounded PoE that doesn't require a separate ground wire. Use  
the ground built into the electrical wiring that is already there  
(like the PacWireless PoE units). Attached is a picture of the PoE  
that was supplied.

I will be testing the speeds and range this Monday (assuming the  
weather is better... we got 6" of snow and 40MPH winds last night).  
I will post more results as I have them. 

Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

2008-12-13 Thread Travis Johnson




Gino,

What have your results been with the Redline product? 

Travis
Microserv

Gino Villarini wrote:

   
 
it uses 802.03af PS ...
 
My point was that you could use the low cost Vecima Bases with these
CPEs ...
 
or stick with el cheapo tranzeo units  Would you pay extra $50 for a
quality cpe? I'll do
 
Definetly Tranzeo does not manufacture this unit  
 

Gino A. Villarini 
g...@aeronetpr.com 
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. 
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145 

 



From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 7:21 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65


U pricing is WAY, WAY different.

Redline AP's are around $10k
Vecima AP's are around $4k

Redline CPE's are $300 each (even in 250 quantity)
Vecima CPE's are less than $249 

And, I was told Tranzeo is making Redline's CPE as well? Could you send
a picture of the Redline CPE?
 
Travis
Microserv

Gino Villarini wrote: 

	iirc one vendor told me the recline CPe could talk with the
Vecima  
	base
	
	
	The redline units are top notch quality construction, no tranzeo

	mickey mouse stuff.
	
	
	Afaik pricing is not much diferent
	
	
	Gino
	
	Sent from my Motorola Startac...
	
	
	On Dec 13, 2008, at 2:37 PM, "Travis Johnson" t...@ida.net
mailto:t...@ida.net  wrote:
	
	  

		Hi,
		
		We received our Vecima "trial" kit (one AP and five CPE)
on Thursday  
		afternoon. We have not yet put it on a tower, as there
were several  
		issues with their software on the AP... but here's some
info thus far:
		
		The base station is quite large. It measures
approximately 14 inches  
		tall x 8 inches wide x 6 inches thick. It weighs about
25 pounds  
		(seriously). It has an RJ-45 ethernet connector and an
N-male  
		connector on the bottom. (I was lead to believe they had
omni, 90  
		degree, 120 degree and connectorized versions, and I
requested the  
		120 unit, but instead got this with an LMR jumper and an
MTI 120  
		antenna).
		
		We began by getting into the AP and making some "normal"
changes  
		(downlink was set to 50%, so we changed it to 70%). Also
the center  
		frequency was set to 3.410 so we changed that to 3.650.
We also  
		changed to 7mhz channel size. We then applied and
rebooted... and  
		then we could no longer get into the "radio"
configuration page  
		(where we had just made all those changes). So we did a
factory  
		reset and tried again. Same thing. We opened a trouble
ticket with  
		Vecima the next morning, and they were able to reproduce
the problem  
		in their lab. Then about 3 hours later, another tech
called back and  
		told us we needed to upgrade the firmware (even though
the first  
		tech said we were running the latest). We upgraded and
that fixed  
		the problem... but then we had a new problem. The
"Allowed MAC  
		address" file somehow got corrupted... so they had to
SSH into the  
		base station and fix that file. (By the way, this AP is
just running  
		Linux 2.6.14 kernel). We were now able to make a
connection to one  
		of the CPE (after setting up the service classifiers,
service flows,  
		and adding a service flow to this MAC address). Making a
link on our  
		test bench (10 feet away), we had a -55ish signal...
however, the  
		ping times and speeds were terrible (2000ms and at the
most 2Mbps).  
		I am thinking it was because this is running OFDM and in
close  
		proximity, the signals bounce all over. Last, all three
techs that I  
		talked to at Vecima asked "Do you have an NMS (network
management  
		server)?" and I had to continually say "no" and then
they would say  
		"oh... I don't know how to do this manually". One of the
reasons we  
		were testing this solution is that it did not require
their NMS to  
		function... however, even their tech support is pretty
limited if  
		you don't have it. Their NMS server is about $5,000 (but
a single  
		server will support an entire network, with unlimited
AP's and CPE).
		
		On to the CPE: This is one of the worst designs of a CPE
that I have  
		ever seen. The entire unit is made by Tranzeo and looks
just like  
		their normal 2.4 CPE. It has the bar of lights on the
top showing  
		Power, LAN, RSSI, etc. The mounting bracket is the "L"
bracket that  
		bolts to the back and has a U-bolt and clamp to hook to
the pipe.  
		The biggest problem is how the ethernet cable connects.
It has the  
		white cover plate that goes over the RJ-45 connector
that has to be  
		bolted to the back of the radio... the problem is, the
pass-thru  
		connector is not big enough to allow an already crimped
RJ-45 cable  
		to pass thru... meaning, you have to run the cable thru
the white  
		plastic thing, then crimp it, then plug it in, and then
screw the  
		nuts down holding the white cover. If you ever have to
replace the  
		ra

Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

2008-12-13 Thread Drew Lentz
From what I understood from the guys at Tranzeo, just because they are
manufactured both by Tranzeo and they are the same freq, there are hooks
into all of the CPEs so that they are not cross-compatible. This might need
clarification, but I was sure that this was the case in speaking with their
guys. In other words, the Tranzeo / Redline CPEs work only with Redline, the
Tranzeo / Vecima CPEs work only with Vecima. The Tranzeo CPEs direct from
Tranzeo will not work with either .. This was done so that end-users don't
shop around to piece together the system.

I might be wrong, but I remember when I heard this described I did the whole
dog tilting it's head sideways thing ...

-drew


On 12/13/08 5:32 PM, Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com wrote:

  
  
 it uses 802.03af PS ...
  
 My point was that you could use the low cost Vecima Bases with these
 CPEs ...
  
 or stick with el cheapo tranzeo units  Would you pay extra $50 for a
 quality cpe? I'll do
  
 Definetly Tranzeo does not manufacture this unit 
  
 
 Gino A. Villarini
 g...@aeronetpr.com
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
 
  
 
 
 
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Travis Johnson
 Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 7:21 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
 
 
 U pricing is WAY, WAY different.
 
 Redline AP's are around $10k
 Vecima AP's are around $4k
 
 Redline CPE's are $300 each (even in 250 quantity)
 Vecima CPE's are less than $249
 
 And, I was told Tranzeo is making Redline's CPE as well? Could you send
 a picture of the Redline CPE?
  
 Travis
 Microserv
 
 Gino Villarini wrote:
 
 iirc one vendor told me the recline CPe could talk with the
 Vecima  
 base
 
 
 The redline units are top notch quality construction, no tranzeo
 
 mickey mouse stuff.
 
 
 Afaik pricing is not much diferent
 
 
 Gino
 
 Sent from my Motorola Startac...
 
 
 On Dec 13, 2008, at 2:37 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net
 mailto:t...@ida.net  wrote:
 
  
 
 Hi,
 
 We received our Vecima trial kit (one AP and five CPE)
 on Thursday  
 afternoon. We have not yet put it on a tower, as there
 were several  
 issues with their software on the AP... but here's some
 info thus far:
 
 The base station is quite large. It measures
 approximately 14 inches
 tall x 8 inches wide x 6 inches thick. It weighs about
 25 pounds  
 (seriously). It has an RJ-45 ethernet connector and an
 N-male  
 connector on the bottom. (I was lead to believe they had
 omni, 90  
 degree, 120 degree and connectorized versions, and I
 requested the  
 120 unit, but instead got this with an LMR jumper and an
 MTI 120  
 antenna).
 
 We began by getting into the AP and making some normal
 changes  
 (downlink was set to 50%, so we changed it to 70%). Also
 the center  
 frequency was set to 3.410 so we changed that to 3.650.
 We also  
 changed to 7mhz channel size. We then applied and
 rebooted... and  
 then we could no longer get into the radio
 configuration page
 (where we had just made all those changes). So we did a
 factory  
 reset and tried again. Same thing. We opened a trouble
 ticket with  
 Vecima the next morning, and they were able to reproduce
 the problem  
 in their lab. Then about 3 hours later, another tech
 called back and  
 told us we needed to upgrade the firmware (even though
 the first  
 tech said we were running the latest). We upgraded and
 that fixed  
 the problem... but then we had a new problem. The
 Allowed MAC  
 address file somehow got corrupted... so they had to
 SSH into the  
 base station and fix that file. (By the way, this AP is
 just running  
 Linux 2.6.14 kernel). We were now able to make a
 connection to one
 of the CPE (after setting up the service classifiers,
 service flows,  
 and adding a service flow to this MAC address). Making a
 link on our  
 test bench (10 feet away), we had a -55ish signal...
 however, the  
 ping times and speeds were terrible (2000ms and at the
 most 2Mbps).  
 I am thinking it was because this is running OFDM and in
 close  
 proximity, the signals bounce all over. Last, all three
 techs that I  
 talked to at Vecima asked Do you have an NMS (network
 management  
 server)? and I had to continually say no and then
 they would say  
 oh... I don't know how to do this manually. One of the
 reasons we  
 were testing this solution is that it did not require
 their NMS to  
 function... however, even their tech support is pretty
 limited if  
 you don't have it. Their NMS server is about $5,000 (but
 a single  
 server will support an entire network, with unlimited
 AP's and CPE).
 
 On to the CPE: This is one of the worst designs of a CPE
 that I have  
 ever seen. The entire unit is made by Tranzeo and looks
 just like  
 their normal 2.4 CPE. It has the bar of lights on the
 top showing  
 Power, LAN, RSSI, etc. The mounting bracket is the L
 bracket