Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-13 Thread Matt Liotta
I spent an hour or so yesterday on the phone with the Director of Sales 
for Exalt. We are working on getting one of their backhauls in for 
testing now.


From the specs...

I like that I can deploy it similar to Canopy backhauls because of the sync.

I like that it is a tri-band radio like the Trango Atlas.

I like that it has software switchable polarization like the Trango Atlas.

I like that it has multiple choices for channel width.

I dislike that it takes a 64Mhz channel to get 100Mbps full duplex.

-Matt

Bob Moldashel wrote:

OK...Lets have a review..

It does not use the whole band.

It has GPS sync so you can use multiple links on the same channel.  
That makes it efficient...


It works for the application..

There is a big difference of opinion here regarding spectrum usage.  
My way of seeing it is as follows.


1.  I always install links with the largest possible antennas to keep 
my beamwidth as narrow as possible regardless of distance.  In NYC I 
consistently use 2' antennas for links one mile or less.


2. We use only the power we need to do the job.  Many of our links are 
running 0-5 dB of output at the radio.


3. We always mount antennas using rooftop structures or adjacent 
buildings to shield us from others.


4.  Interference happens.  We have not had any interference with FD 
constant carrier radios.  Period.


Another position is why should several users be allowed to use 
equipment that eats up the band passing say a simple video stream and 
such??  How is that efficient  They are eating channels running 
a couple of megs.I'm eating it running 100 Mb FD.  How about the 
WISP's that are using 120* sector antennas and throwing RF all over 
the place every time one of his 3 subscribers decides to use their 
system??  How is that spectrum efficency???  Or the guy that uses an 
omni and the 1 watt amp???
I can go on and on.  The spectrum is limited.  That sucks.  But 
business is business and it is important to do what is necessary to 
provide for your business at the most cost effective manner possible.  
Is WalMart going to be considerate of you if you have a little 5  10 
store on the next block???   Of course not.  And why??? Because they 
are serving the masses at a price that the masses want and that is 
what it takes to serve the masses.  Will some of the 510 operators go 
out of business because they can't compete??  Sure they will.  Its 
called competition. And that is just what Matt is doing.  If he has 
the demand then he needs to do what is necessary.  If his business 
model does not allow him to purchase expensive licensed equipment over 
cheaper unlicensed equipment then so be it.  That's business.


I came from the 2 way radio industry.  I fought the beast (Nextel) for 
several years before it finally killed the 2-way radio industry.  I 
was somewhat fortunate because we did predominately Public Safety and 
Government accounts.  We were the ones to get up at 2AM on a Sunday to 
fix a base station while all the 2-way shops that were doing 9-5 
business customers were home sleeping.  When nextel killed 2-way 
dispatch all the other radio shops decided to start fixing Public 
safety and Govt customer equip.  The labor rate went from $100 per 
hour to $40 per hour just so guys could survive. Many went out of 
business. Am I upset???  Sure.  Did I plan for my future??  Sure.  We 
turned on big time to microwave 12 years ago when most of you didn't 
even know about it. As such we have avoided the dreaded Nextel 
monster. Am I going to be able to do what I am doing forever???  Of 
course not.  I am already planning my next transition.


If most of you guys think you are going to be WISP's 10+ years from 
now I think you need to re-examine your business plan


I am sure that many will be unhappy with this rant but I think it 
needs to be real food for thought.  If I was in business and i needed 
100 Mb FD of throughput between locations I'll be damned if I am going 
to spend extra money for equipment so I don't interfere with someone 
else in the future.


PLEASE NOTE*I AM NOT ENDORSING INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE BY 
ANYONE.  So please don't say I am


Good luck!

-B-



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-13 Thread Travis Johnson

And, how much do you like the price?

Travis


Matt Liotta wrote:
I spent an hour or so yesterday on the phone with the Director of 
Sales for Exalt. We are working on getting one of their backhauls in 
for testing now.


From the specs...

I like that I can deploy it similar to Canopy backhauls because of the 
sync.


I like that it is a tri-band radio like the Trango Atlas.

I like that it has software switchable polarization like the Trango 
Atlas.


I like that it has multiple choices for channel width.

I dislike that it takes a 64Mhz channel to get 100Mbps full duplex.

-Matt

Bob Moldashel wrote:

OK...Lets have a review..

It does not use the whole band.

It has GPS sync so you can use multiple links on the same channel.  
That makes it efficient...


It works for the application..

There is a big difference of opinion here regarding spectrum usage.  
My way of seeing it is as follows.


1.  I always install links with the largest possible antennas to keep 
my beamwidth as narrow as possible regardless of distance.  In NYC I 
consistently use 2' antennas for links one mile or less.


2. We use only the power we need to do the job.  Many of our links 
are running 0-5 dB of output at the radio.


3. We always mount antennas using rooftop structures or adjacent 
buildings to shield us from others.


4.  Interference happens.  We have not had any interference with FD 
constant carrier radios.  Period.


Another position is why should several users be allowed to use 
equipment that eats up the band passing say a simple video stream and 
such??  How is that efficient  They are eating channels running 
a couple of megs.I'm eating it running 100 Mb FD.  How about the 
WISP's that are using 120* sector antennas and throwing RF all over 
the place every time one of his 3 subscribers decides to use their 
system??  How is that spectrum efficency???  Or the guy that uses an 
omni and the 1 watt amp???
I can go on and on.  The spectrum is limited.  That sucks.  But 
business is business and it is important to do what is necessary to 
provide for your business at the most cost effective manner 
possible.  Is WalMart going to be considerate of you if you have a 
little 5  10 store on the next block???   Of course not.  And why??? 
Because they are serving the masses at a price that the masses want 
and that is what it takes to serve the masses.  Will some of the 510 
operators go out of business because they can't compete??  Sure they 
will.  Its called competition. And that is just what Matt is doing.  
If he has the demand then he needs to do what is necessary.  If his 
business model does not allow him to purchase expensive licensed 
equipment over cheaper unlicensed equipment then so be it.  That's 
business.


I came from the 2 way radio industry.  I fought the beast (Nextel) 
for several years before it finally killed the 2-way radio industry.  
I was somewhat fortunate because we did predominately Public Safety 
and Government accounts.  We were the ones to get up at 2AM on a 
Sunday to fix a base station while all the 2-way shops that were 
doing 9-5 business customers were home sleeping.  When nextel killed 
2-way dispatch all the other radio shops decided to start fixing 
Public safety and Govt customer equip.  The labor rate went from $100 
per hour to $40 per hour just so guys could survive. Many went out of 
business. Am I upset???  Sure.  Did I plan for my future??  Sure.  We 
turned on big time to microwave 12 years ago when most of you didn't 
even know about it. As such we have avoided the dreaded Nextel 
monster. Am I going to be able to do what I am doing forever???  Of 
course not.  I am already planning my next transition.


If most of you guys think you are going to be WISP's 10+ years from 
now I think you need to re-examine your business plan


I am sure that many will be unhappy with this rant but I think it 
needs to be real food for thought.  If I was in business and i needed 
100 Mb FD of throughput between locations I'll be damned if I am 
going to spend extra money for equipment so I don't interfere with 
someone else in the future.


PLEASE NOTE*I AM NOT ENDORSING INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE BY 
ANYONE.  So please don't say I am


Good luck!

-B-




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-13 Thread Tom DeReggi
So there is no misunderstanding. My original comment was based on radios 
like early WMUX, that used the whole spectrum range.
I have nothing against high capacity radios 100mbps FDX and Higher. I don't 
have anything against selecting higher capacity radios when needed, or 
chosing a radio that is less efficient because it is the only radio capable 
to meet the need, or required to get the job done.


Where my beef is, is using an unefficient radio to accomplish something when 
an efficient radio is available to deliver equivellent speed (at a 
reasonable cost).  Price is not everything. As WISPs we have a 
responsibility to do the best job we can. We are not obligated to sacrifice, 
but we are obligated to live by example and do the best we can, with 
consideration of others in the  environment.  If someone is doing that, I 
have no beef, regardless of the technology that is used.


My post was not about wether PTP or PTMP or any specific radio or deployment 
design was more efficient than another, and irrelevent because there is a 
requirement for all types that have issues more important than the 
efficiency. My point was what ever method was chosen, the provider should be 
aware to install the most efficient system possible that does not have a 
significant trade off, within reason.


I'd always recommend a 100mbps FX radio that used 32 mhz of spectrum over 
one that used 100Mhz of spectrum.  There are so many people that just put up 
links, and then say if I don't have problem with interference thats all that 
matters.  That is selfish and foolish. Its not true that interference is 
bi-directional.  The high gain system is going to kill the lower gain 
system.  The responsible thing to do is to do a channel scan/survey to 
see the free-est channel, and then broadcast on that channel, with the 
intent to avoid interference to others.  It is clear as day what is and 
isn't good etiquette, and those that do not follow it, will ultimately loose 
in my prediction.  In my earlier days, if I felt interference, I just 
switched to another channel to avoid the conflict, an advantage Trango gave 
me easilly. But we don't do it anymore, we hold our ground.  If our link is 
up, and we see new interference on it, we go after the interferer until they 
move. I can tell you, if someone puts up a radio using all 100mhz of 
spectrum, and it happens to cross one of our cellsite or subscribers taking 
them down, the offendor's link will be taken down (made unusable) within 24 
hours, that I promise and guarantee.  Why do I say that, because I'm follow 
your advise Bob, business is business. What comes around goes around.  I got 
a radio on the shelf that I call the Equalizer ready and waiting, and 200 
class A/B roof tops to create a ligitimate PtP link to take it down.  NOBODY 
is above/invulnerable to interference.  And a tech is fooling theirself is 
their strategy is they are always going to deploy smarter than the next guy. 
We all have the same gear available to us.


The length of this industry depends on the players. We can rush our selves 
to extiction or we can preach and follow etiquette.


Bob, I also use narrow beam 2ft antenna with low tx power for short PTPs to 
avoid interference, and sometimes that works well enough (even with spectrum 
wasting radios).  But not always. Sometimes it send a large number of 
reflections bouncing all across the city which are adative to all the other 
noise sources.  I'd still argue using a radio that is more efficient will 
have less risk, if one is available that can meet the need.


The problem with using a radio that uses full 100mhz is that there is no way 
to immediately resurrect interference, with no channel to run to, without 
contacting the interferor. This forces your interfered with to resort to 
desperate measures to resolve the interference on their own link. It brings 
out the worse in your newly created enemy. Its best to allow your apponent a 
mechanism to cure the problem without being required to taking you down 
back, and asking questions later. Its about conflict avoidance not winning a 
conflict.  The truth is its almost impossible to tell whether you will 
interfere with some one else. The reason is that you can scan for noise, but 
you can't tell what equipment the other party is using , what noise floor 
they require to opperate, or the distance of their link.   Again if you scan 
first, and the channel is empty, there is no issue here. But I find it rare 
in DC to find ANY channel that is EMPTY. The challenge is usually what do 
I have to do to get over the noise floor.  A 2ft dish still have a beamwidth 
of minimum 6deg, which covers a lot of territory indense Urban america.


Rant done.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:11 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] high

Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-13 Thread michaeldavidlake
Not sure which radios your reffering to as not being FCC certified but you 
should dig deeper than the surface. 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 7:23 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
 The Gigacom product is the only one that you can get any real long distance 
 out of depending on the freq. They have licensed radios that perform very 
 well in the rainforest of South America at very long distance. 60k or 40 
 miles for some applications at speeds of up to a Gig. One of if not the best 
 Gig. radio on the mrkt. 
 Those radios aren't FCC certified. And no, I won't being using an 
 experimental license until they are certified like the sales person 
 suggested. 
 
-Matt 
 
-- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org 
 
Subscribe/Unsubscribe: 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 
 
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 

Check out the new AOL.  Most comprehensive set of free safety and security 
tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free 
AOL Mail and more.
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-13 Thread Tom DeReggi

Again, since we only run PtP gear our signal well exceeds everyone else's.


That's my point. You feel it doesn't matter because your signal is stronger 
and you initially survive. The Ostrage syndrom, if I stick my head in a 
hole and don't see it, it must not be there.  Or the I care about me 
mentality.
The point is, it doesn't stay that way.  Soon your competitor has a PTP to, 
but now at an even higher signal above yours.
Before you know it, you both are escalating to 4ft dishes and heavy duty 
mounts, and hit with bills for second trips by installation constractor to 
install them, and negotiations with property owners to install them, etc.


Again, if you aren't interfering with other, and spectrum is free, my 
arguement does not apply.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 8:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options



Tom DeReggi wrote:

Matt,

If you live in a remote area, with no potential interferers, then my 
comment does not apply.
But last I heard you were deploying in the middle of Urban Atlanta and 
possibly Urban DC, with the potential for many interferers eventually.


We mostly deploy in urban areas, but we do a good bit of rural as well. We 
don't really run into interference from others; mostly self-interference 
from putting too many links on a site. Again, since we only run PtP gear 
our signal well exceeds everyone else's.


-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-13 Thread Matt Liotta

Tom DeReggi wrote:
If our link is up, and we see new interference on it, we go after the 
interferer until they move. I can tell you, if someone puts up a radio 
using all 100mhz of spectrum, and it happens to cross one of our 
cellsite or subscribers taking them down, the offendor's link will be 
taken down (made unusable) within 24 hours, that I promise and 
guarantee.  Why do I say that, because I'm follow your advise Bob, 
business is business. What comes around goes around.  I got a radio on 
the shelf that I call the Equalizer ready and waiting, and 200 class 
A/B roof tops to create a ligitimate PtP link to take it down.  NOBODY 
is above/invulnerable to interference.  And a tech is fooling 
theirself is their strategy is they are always going to deploy smarter 
than the next guy. We all have the same gear available to us.


The above both in your suggested course of action and the fact that you 
state it on a public mailing list easily searchable by Google almost 
ensures a law suit should you ever take your suggested course of action. 
There are numerous better ways to deal with interference and/or competitors.


-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-13 Thread Matt Liotta

Travis Johnson wrote:

And, how much do you like the price?
I haven't gotten final pricing yet, but I was led to believe it was 
comparable to Orthogon.


-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-13 Thread Brian Webster
Bob,
Great rant! Coming from the same industry you have I totally agree. You
have to face the facts unpleasant as they may be. This reminds me of the old
saying My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts! Too many start
up WISP's have this viewpoint and won't pay attention to folks like you who
have been down this wireless road time and time again. History does repeat
itself, for those who have not been in this game long enough to have lived
it, they should take advice from those like you have already learned the
lessons at least once if not twice before



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


-Original Message-
From: Bob Moldashel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:43 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options


OK...Lets have a review..

It does not use the whole band.

It has GPS sync so you can use multiple links on the same channel.  That
makes it efficient...

It works for the application..

There is a big difference of opinion here regarding spectrum usage.  My
way of seeing it is as follows.

1.  I always install links with the largest possible antennas to keep my
beamwidth as narrow as possible regardless of distance.  In NYC I
consistently use 2' antennas for links one mile or less.

2. We use only the power we need to do the job.  Many of our links are
running 0-5 dB of output at the radio.

3. We always mount antennas using rooftop structures or adjacent
buildings to shield us from others.

4.  Interference happens.  We have not had any interference with FD
constant carrier radios.  Period.

Another position is why should several users be allowed to use equipment
that eats up the band passing say a simple video stream and such??  How
is that efficient  They are eating channels running a couple of
megs.I'm eating it running 100 Mb FD.  How about the WISP's that are
using 120* sector antennas and throwing RF all over the place every time
one of his 3 subscribers decides to use their system??  How is that
spectrum efficency???  Or the guy that uses an omni and the 1 watt amp???

I can go on and on.  The spectrum is limited.  That sucks.  But business
is business and it is important to do what is necessary to provide for
your business at the most cost effective manner possible.  Is WalMart
going to be considerate of you if you have a little 5  10 store on the
next block???   Of course not.  And why??? Because they are serving the
masses at a price that the masses want and that is what it takes to
serve the masses.  Will some of the 510 operators go out of business
because they can't compete??  Sure they will.  Its called competition.
And that is just what Matt is doing.  If he has the demand then he needs
to do what is necessary.  If his business model does not allow him to
purchase expensive licensed equipment over cheaper unlicensed equipment
then so be it.  That's business.

I came from the 2 way radio industry.  I fought the beast (Nextel) for
several years before it finally killed the 2-way radio industry.  I was
somewhat fortunate because we did predominately Public Safety and
Government accounts.  We were the ones to get up at 2AM on a Sunday to
fix a base station while all the 2-way shops that were doing 9-5
business customers were home sleeping.  When nextel killed 2-way
dispatch all the other radio shops decided to start fixing Public safety
and Govt customer equip.  The labor rate went from $100 per hour to $40
per hour just so guys could survive. Many went out of business. Am I
upset???  Sure.  Did I plan for my future??  Sure.  We turned on big
time to microwave 12 years ago when most of you didn't even know about
it. As such we have avoided the dreaded Nextel monster. Am I going to be
able to do what I am doing forever???  Of course not.  I am already
planning my next transition.

If most of you guys think you are going to be WISP's 10+ years from now
I think you need to re-examine your business plan

I am sure that many will be unhappy with this rant but I think it needs
to be real food for thought.  If I was in business and i needed 100 Mb
FD of throughput between locations I'll be damned if I am going to spend
extra money for equipment so I don't interfere with someone else in the
future.

PLEASE NOTE*I AM NOT ENDORSING INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE BY ANYONE.
So please don't say I am

Good luck!

-B-

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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Archives: http

Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-13 Thread Tom DeReggi

Matt,

Is it 64 Mhz in both directions (full 64Mhz TX), or 32 mhz in each direction 
(one for TX one for RX)?


If 32Mhz in each direction, I'd argue pretty darn efficient for 100mbps FDX.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options


I spent an hour or so yesterday on the phone with the Director of Sales for 
Exalt. We are working on getting one of their backhauls in for testing now.


From the specs...

I like that I can deploy it similar to Canopy backhauls because of the 
sync.


I like that it is a tri-band radio like the Trango Atlas.

I like that it has software switchable polarization like the Trango Atlas.

I like that it has multiple choices for channel width.

I dislike that it takes a 64Mhz channel to get 100Mbps full duplex.

-Matt

Bob Moldashel wrote:

OK...Lets have a review..

It does not use the whole band.

It has GPS sync so you can use multiple links on the same channel.  That 
makes it efficient...


It works for the application..

There is a big difference of opinion here regarding spectrum usage.  My 
way of seeing it is as follows.


1.  I always install links with the largest possible antennas to keep my 
beamwidth as narrow as possible regardless of distance.  In NYC I 
consistently use 2' antennas for links one mile or less.


2. We use only the power we need to do the job.  Many of our links are 
running 0-5 dB of output at the radio.


3. We always mount antennas using rooftop structures or adjacent 
buildings to shield us from others.


4.  Interference happens.  We have not had any interference with FD 
constant carrier radios.  Period.


Another position is why should several users be allowed to use equipment 
that eats up the band passing say a simple video stream and such??  How 
is that efficient  They are eating channels running a couple of 
megs.I'm eating it running 100 Mb FD.  How about the WISP's that are 
using 120* sector antennas and throwing RF all over the place every time 
one of his 3 subscribers decides to use their system??  How is that 
spectrum efficency???  Or the guy that uses an omni and the 1 watt amp???
I can go on and on.  The spectrum is limited.  That sucks.  But business 
is business and it is important to do what is necessary to provide for 
your business at the most cost effective manner possible.  Is WalMart 
going to be considerate of you if you have a little 5  10 store on the 
next block???   Of course not.  And why??? Because they are serving the 
masses at a price that the masses want and that is what it takes to serve 
the masses.  Will some of the 510 operators go out of business because 
they can't compete??  Sure they will.  Its called competition. And that 
is just what Matt is doing.  If he has the demand then he needs to do 
what is necessary.  If his business model does not allow him to purchase 
expensive licensed equipment over cheaper unlicensed equipment then so be 
it.  That's business.


I came from the 2 way radio industry.  I fought the beast (Nextel) for 
several years before it finally killed the 2-way radio industry.  I was 
somewhat fortunate because we did predominately Public Safety and 
Government accounts.  We were the ones to get up at 2AM on a Sunday to 
fix a base station while all the 2-way shops that were doing 9-5 business 
customers were home sleeping.  When nextel killed 2-way dispatch all the 
other radio shops decided to start fixing Public safety and Govt customer 
equip.  The labor rate went from $100 per hour to $40 per hour just so 
guys could survive. Many went out of business. Am I upset???  Sure.  Did 
I plan for my future??  Sure.  We turned on big time to microwave 12 
years ago when most of you didn't even know about it. As such we have 
avoided the dreaded Nextel monster. Am I going to be able to do what I am 
doing forever???  Of course not.  I am already planning my next 
transition.


If most of you guys think you are going to be WISP's 10+ years from now I 
think you need to re-examine your business plan


I am sure that many will be unhappy with this rant but I think it needs 
to be real food for thought.  If I was in business and i needed 100 Mb FD 
of throughput between locations I'll be damned if I am going to spend 
extra money for equipment so I don't interfere with someone else in the 
future.


PLEASE NOTE*I AM NOT ENDORSING INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE BY ANYONE. 
So please don't say I am


Good luck!

-B-



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Archives: http

Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-13 Thread Bob Moldashel
 are 
adative to all the other noise sources.  I'd still argue using a radio 
that is more efficient will have less risk, if one is available that 
can meet the need.


The problem with using a radio that uses full 100mhz is that there is 
no way to immediately resurrect interference, with no channel to run 
to, without contacting the interferor. 


See my Walmart comments.  Unfortunately sometimes you can talk 
to the competition until they are blue in the face and nothing will 
happen. 



This forces your interfered with to resort to desperate measures to 
resolve the interference on their own link. It brings out the worse in 
your newly created enemy. Its best to allow your apponent a mechanism 
to cure the problem without being required to taking you down back, 
and asking questions later. Its about conflict avoidance not winning a 
conflict.


Agreed...But that is not going to win all the wars unfortunately..  It's 
the gentlemens way to do things but not everyone in business is a gentleman.



The truth is its almost impossible to tell whether you will interfere 
with some one else. The reason is that you can scan for noise, but you 
can't tell what equipment the other party is using , what noise floor 
they require to opperate, or the distance of their link.   Again if 
you scan first, and the channel is empty, there is no issue here. But 
I find it rare in DC to find ANY channel that is EMPTY. 


Oh..Oh..Then I guess you won't be too happy if I tell you I have 
deployed 5 Exalt links in Wash. DC.   100 Mb  5 Ghz...g



The challenge is usually what do I have to do to get over the noise 
floor.  A 2ft dish still have a beamwidth of minimum 6deg, which 
covers a lot of territory indense Urban america.



You can only do the best you can with what you can afford.

My reply was not directed towards your response.  It was directed to the 
thread in general.  With unlicensed equipment there is going to be 
interference. And there are going to be companies that will go out of 
business because they can't compete wether it financially or with 
spectrum.  Business is the oportunity to create something that will 
provide for others as well as for the owner.  The federal government 
believes competition is good as we all know from the 
telco/LEC/CLEC/DLEC/ELEC/FLEC...etc, etc situation.  But you and I as 
small business do not want competition (I surely don't...excuse me for 
being greedy  :-)).  If I was in the position, while it is not nice 
play, I would do everything in my power to use up as much of the 
spectrum as possible to keep others out.  The oil companies do it every 
day.  So do the pharmaceutical companies.  As do others   What the 
hell...look at Canopy.  Do you think Motorola cares if they interfere 
with everyone and their brother???  NoThey care about market share 
at any legal means possible.


And that's BIG business.

:-)

Have a great dayI have to go install another Exaly link in NYC and 
I'm late...


-B-



Rant done.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:11 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options



Matt Liotta wrote:


Matt Liotta wrote:


Its not greedy; efficient maybe, but not greedy.



Whoops... meant inefficient.

-Matt


100 Mb FD on a 32 Mhz. channel.That's not bad.

Besides...get the GPS syc option and you can tie in a handful of 
links on the same channel.  That makes them very efficient


-B-

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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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






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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-13 Thread Brad Belton
Wow Tom.  That comment is really out of character and your emotions must
have gotten the best of you.  Doing what you suggest with your Equalizer
is going to get you in a boat load of trouble one day.

Best,

Brad


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 8:58 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

Tom DeReggi wrote:
 If our link is up, and we see new interference on it, we go after the 
 interferer until they move. I can tell you, if someone puts up a radio 
 using all 100mhz of spectrum, and it happens to cross one of our 
 cellsite or subscribers taking them down, the offendor's link will be 
 taken down (made unusable) within 24 hours, that I promise and 
 guarantee.  Why do I say that, because I'm follow your advise Bob, 
 business is business. What comes around goes around.  I got a radio on 
 the shelf that I call the Equalizer ready and waiting, and 200 class 
 A/B roof tops to create a ligitimate PtP link to take it down.  NOBODY 
 is above/invulnerable to interference.  And a tech is fooling 
 theirself is their strategy is they are always going to deploy smarter 
 than the next guy. We all have the same gear available to us.

The above both in your suggested course of action and the fact that you 
state it on a public mailing list easily searchable by Google almost 
ensures a law suit should you ever take your suggested course of action. 
There are numerous better ways to deal with interference and/or competitors.

-Matt

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-13 Thread Tom DeReggi
state it on a public mailing list easily searchable by Google almost 
ensures a law suit should you ever take your suggested course of action. 
There are numerous better ways to deal with interference and/or 
competitors.


I disagree.  The reason is
I have the right to install a Point to Point Link between any two buildings 
that I want. And if that is to pass low volume monitoring traffic so be it.
If it happens to pass through a Competor's link so be it. Knowing that it 
passes a competitor's link and will take it down is irrelevent, as I can 
establish a legitimate need to install that link.  I've made no threat to 
anyone for the specific case that arises, in that process, and I have a 
legitimate purpose other than to take someone down.  I just don't care that 
I know someone will go down as a result, in that scenario.  That is 
absolutely no different than the original installer that isntalled with ZERO 
care of who they were going to take down when they isntalled. The difference 
is the tables are turned and it forces the original party to take the burden 
of the cost, and motivate the interfering party to be more considerate, 
after they demonstrated that they originally did not have any consideration. 
I've never seen a case won where, Provider A takes down PRovider B, And then 
Provider B equalizes things to defend their link, and Provider A tried to 
SUE provider B, when Provider B was the original one that got Harmed by A. 
There would be absolutely no sympathy for the situation of Provider A.  If 
anything, it could be argued by PRovider B, that Provider A initiated 
intentional harm, and knew you were there to harm you.  That would be jsut 
as easy to prove as the reverse. Bringong attention to this type of thing in 
Court would jsut be foolish.  It would be a different story If Provider B 
pointed directly at Provider A, in a way that it could be proven that the 
intent was solely to harm.  Your mentality suggests that it is the burden of 
the person that gets interfered with to eat the cost to identify and source 
out the new interferer.  It takes time and money to identify the person that 
interferes with me.  I believe it is the New Entrant that has the 
responsibility to make sure they minimize the chances they will not step on 
an existing someone.


Its also harder to prove intentional harm, when you haven't identified who 
the individual is that you are harming.


Its a simple morality issue of...
1. Do on to others as you would want them to do for you.
2. when that fails, eye for an eye, to get them to think about rule 1.
3. when they find you, and the phone call comes in, work amicably to 
resolve.


I'm not sure there is a better way to deal with interference. However, I am 
open to suggestions.


The truth is, its rare that this methodology has to ever occur. The reason 
is that most WISPS  and integrators respect etiquette. And we always first 
look if there is a more cost effective way to resolve the problem, such as 
narrow our antenna beam, or repointing around interference. And if we can 
easilly find the other party, we'd usually try an make a call first. But the 
problem occurs when, the other party is not easily found, (the antenna is 
easy to find, the responsible party isn't always in a timely manor), and the 
link quality can not be quickly be resolved. The provider that gets 
interferred with is desperate and has a client to answer to, and then 
extreme measures are needed.  When at that point, its about survival, and 
setting an example, because the last thing you want is a loose canon 
integrator in town.


I am not making any accusation of whether you are or are not deploying 
responsibly with etiquette, but simply defending my case of how interference 
gets dealt with in the real world.   But the problem isn't me and my 
suggestions. I only had to use the equalizer once, and it was effective, and 
I even shared the cost of upgrading gear to make a resolutiuon to co-exist. 
What needs to be understood is there are a lot of players out there, and 
they are likely to respond the way that I suggested.


The bully or I'm stronger approach just doesn't work in unlicensed, the only 
things that works is maximum effort to avoid interference.


With that said I believe that this thread is getting way beyond the scope of 
what the original thread was. As the intent of the thread was whats a good  
100mbps FDX radio, and it appears suggestions like Exalt, are going in the 
right direction, as responsible choices.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options



Tom DeReggi wrote:
If our link is up, and we see new interference on it, we go after the 
interferer until they move. I can tell you, if someone puts up a radio 
using all 100mhz

Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-13 Thread Tom DeReggi
 
deployed 5 Exalt links in Wash. DC.   100 Mb  5 Ghz...g


No, I'm happy to hear that, because you must be using thoughtful techniques, 
because They have not caused me interference that I am aware of, or atleast 
not that I have not been able to survive.


The challenge is usually what do I have to do to get over the noise 
floor.  A 2ft dish still have a beamwidth of minimum 6deg, which covers a 
lot of territory indense Urban america.



You can only do the best you can with what you can afford.


I agree. But it doesn't sound like you are installing cheap gear, and you 
have lots of option within what you can afford.


My reply was not directed towards your response.  It was directed to the 
thread in general.  With unlicensed equipment there is going to be 
interference. And there are going to be companies that will go out of 
business because they can't compete wether it financially or with 
spectrum.


I agree.

 Business is the oportunity to create something that will provide for 
others as well as for the owner.  The federal government believes 
competition is good as we all know from the 
telco/LEC/CLEC/DLEC/ELEC/FLEC...etc, etc situation.  But you and I as 
small business do not want competition (I surely don't...excuse me for 
being greedy  :-)).


If I was in the position, while it is not nice play, I would do 
everything in my power to use up as much of the spectrum as possible to 
keep others out.  The oil companies do it every day.  So do the 
pharmaceutical companies.  As do others   What the hell...look at Canopy. 
Do you think Motorola cares if they interfere with everyone and their 
brother???  NoThey care about market share at any legal means 
possible.


I respect your honesty, and it may be a reality of competition, but
Thats where I disagree.  I do not believe there is anything wrong with 
installing gear, that you eventually plan to use, to reserve your space in 
your market.
A perfect example is installing a full 360 degrees with 6 sectors of TDD 
always transmitting gear, even when you may only have 1 client one day one. 
The intent is to market and use the spectrum that you are operating on.  Its 
even respectful to other players because it tells them where you are, so 
they can avoid interfering with you.


But what you are suggesting is Spectrum Squatting, a technique that many 
WISPs use, but that I do not feels respects etiquette or a principle that 
any WISPA member should support.  Wasting spectrum is probably the biggest 
disservice to consumers, the industry, the goal to deliver broadband to all 
America, and give consumer's choice.  I recognize there are some grey lines 
on that topic.  For example justifying a DSSS radio over a more efficient 
OFDM, because it may be the reality of last man standing in noisy 
competitive environements.


Tom DeReggi



And that's BIG business.



:-)

Have a great dayI have to go install another Exaly link in NYC and I'm 
late...


-B-



Rant done.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:11 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options



Matt Liotta wrote:


Matt Liotta wrote:


Its not greedy; efficient maybe, but not greedy.



Whoops... meant inefficient.

-Matt


100 Mb FD on a 32 Mhz. channel.That's not bad.

Besides...get the GPS syc option and you can tie in a handful of links 
on the same channel.  That makes them very efficient


-B-

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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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






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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-13 Thread Tom DeReggi

Brad,

Although, your response is politically correct. I turn the question 
around


If you had a $1000 a month ARPU customer link, and a competitor shot a PTP 
100Mhz link through you, not caring that you were going to get brought down, 
how would you handle it?  It happens, reported many times on this list, over 
the years. Would you just give up the $1000 buck a month, and shut down? 
What about when you contacted the other party, and they would not work with 
you to resolve interference, because they thought their link would 
ultimately win? When you knew and advised them there was a solution that 
would allow you both to work? What would you do? How would you amicably 
handle it?


I have little respect for those that do not respect others, and they deserve 
anything that comes back around to them.  And my responsibility is to my 
subscriber, that I made a commitment to deliver reliable service to.  I will 
take any measure required to protect my subscriber, within reason that I can 
get away with legally, as I am contractually obligated to deliver quality of 
service and uptime to my subscriber.  People may not admit it, but there are 
very few providers that would not defend their network, if and when they had 
to.


PS. I don't really have an Equalizer on the shelf., I made it up to prove a 
point. But every WISP on this list knows how to make an Equalizer, if they 
wanted to.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:37 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options


Wow Tom.  That comment is really out of character and your emotions must
have gotten the best of you.  Doing what you suggest with your Equalizer
is going to get you in a boat load of trouble one day.

Best,

Brad


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 8:58 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

Tom DeReggi wrote:

If our link is up, and we see new interference on it, we go after the
interferer until they move. I can tell you, if someone puts up a radio
using all 100mhz of spectrum, and it happens to cross one of our
cellsite or subscribers taking them down, the offendor's link will be
taken down (made unusable) within 24 hours, that I promise and
guarantee.  Why do I say that, because I'm follow your advise Bob,
business is business. What comes around goes around.  I got a radio on
the shelf that I call the Equalizer ready and waiting, and 200 class
A/B roof tops to create a ligitimate PtP link to take it down.  NOBODY
is above/invulnerable to interference.  And a tech is fooling
theirself is their strategy is they are always going to deploy smarter
than the next guy. We all have the same gear available to us.


The above both in your suggested course of action and the fact that you
state it on a public mailing list easily searchable by Google almost
ensures a law suit should you ever take your suggested course of action.
There are numerous better ways to deal with interference and/or competitors.

-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-13 Thread Bob Moldashel
OK...Lets look at this whole issue with one other twist. 

Let's say you need a large pipe to carry 100 Mb full duplex between 2 
locations.  You happen top have a $15K link sitting on the shelf that 
you could deploy.  In doing so you may wipe out or interfere with the 
poor little WISP 2 miles away.  What do you do???


Incur more expenses by buying another link that will not cause 
interference??


Do you pay the ILEC/CLEC?etc for a 100 Mb pipe???

Or do you put it up and just go with it???

I bet I know what most of you would do.  Werger or not you will print it 
is another issue.


But let's hear it. 


What would ya do?.

-B-

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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-13 Thread michaeldavidlake
 
 Your point is extremely valuble considering there are alot of people out there 
claiming to use point to point radios when in reality they are putting up a 
Multipiont ap and sm with the spray and pray mantality. ( extremly unengineered 
and poorly erenginered.)  Some of those same people don't have any kind of 
safty program. Yet they want to hire someone else to take all the risk not pay 
them and have the audasity to point the finger at someone else when they have 
issues. Usually done because as you stated they only care about me and could 
really care less about the industry the customers or average Joe that is just 
trying to connect two offices that are miles or blocks apart that doesn't even 
fit on the competion platform.
 
There are alot of start ups that do this. I can't tell you how many I have 
worked with. Some are members of this digest.  Its the same old game of  I'm 
and expert after only a yr or so in the industry.  While thats great for an 
upstart that doesn't really have any competition it is a grave industry down 
fall.  Unengineered or poorly engineered links end up eating alot of man hours 
troubleshooting. The spray and pray mantality has no place in our industry its 
for amatures.
 
 
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options


Considering my name comes up here several times I guess I should reply 
 
 
Tom DeReggi wrote: 
 
 So there is no misunderstanding. My original comment was based on  radios 
 like early WMUX, that used the whole spectrum range. 
 I have nothing against high capacity radios 100mbps FDX and Higher. I  don't 
 have anything against selecting higher capacity radios when  needed, or 
 chosing a radio that is less efficient because it is the  only radio capable 
 to meet the need, or required to get the job done. 
 
 Where my beef is, is using an unefficient radio to accomplish  something 
 when an efficient radio is available to deliver equivellent  speed (at a 
 reasonable cost). Price is not everything. As WISPs we  have a 
 responsibility to do the best job we can. We are not obligated  to 
 sacrifice, but we are obligated to live by example and do the best  we can, 
 with consideration of others in the environment. If someone  is doing that, 
 I have no beef, regardless of the technology that is used. 
 
Unfortunately you are not going to get the same latency with a half duplex 
radio. So latency is one issue. Another is security. Using something that is 
proprietary also makes your network more secure. So those are 2 good issues to 
coinsider why to not use something like a Trango for large scale backhaul. 
 
 
 My post was not about wether PTP or PTMP or any specific radio or  
 deployment design was more efficient than another, and irrelevent  because 
 there is a requirement for all types that have issues more  important than 
 the efficiency. My point was what ever method was  chosen, the provider 
 should be aware to install the most efficient  system possible that does not 
 have a significant trade off, within  reason. 
 
But what do you consider a significant tradeoff??? 
 
 
 I'd always recommend a 100mbps FX radio that used 32 mhz of spectrum  over 
 one that used 100Mhz of spectrum. 
 
That's fine as long as it meets your business model. But is the 100 Mhz. is 
more economical and I am not using that spectrum, then why not use it?? 
 
 There are so many people that just put up links, and then say if I  don't 
 have problem with interference thats all that matters. That is  selfish and 
 foolish. 
 
What should they do?? Assume that they are causing interference and what??? 
Shut down??? I think the best you can do is design a system within your 
knowledge base and budget. 
 
 Its not true that interference is bi-directional.  
I know that... 
 
 The high gain system is going to kill the lower gain system.  
Usually. C/I is obviously important. 
 
 The responsible thing to do is to do a channel scan/survey to see  the 
 free-est channel, and then broadcast on that channel, with the  intent to 
 avoid interference to others. 
 
But you know that's not a given... 
 
 It is clear as day what is and isn't good etiquette, and those that do  not 
 follow it, will ultimately loose in my prediction. In my earlier  days, if I 
 felt interference, I just switched to another channel to  avoid the 
 conflict, an advantage Trango gave me easilly.  
Exalt does that in 1 Mhz. channels. And you can switch polarities via software 
also.  
 But we don't do it anymore, we hold our ground. If our link is up,  and we 
 see new interference on it, we go after the interferer until  they move. 
 
What does go after mean 
 
 I can tell you, if someone puts up a radio using all 100mhz of  spectrum, 
 and it happens to cross one of our cellsite or subscribers  taking them 
 down, the offendor's link will be taken down (made  unusable) within

Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-13 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
Well, SOP in a case like this is to find a way to not cause catastrophic 
interference to anyone that was there first.


Lets change your example a little bit.  Lets make it a link that the E911 
system uses.  You gonna blow it offline just because you can?  Should you do 
that?  What would your reputation in the community be?


Now lets go up another level.  When you blow your competitor offline, what 
does that do the your industry's reputation?  Did you really gain anything, 
in the long run, by doing so?  Nope.  You hurt him AND you shot yourself in 
the foot by causing more doubt about your technology choices.


Then there's always that ol' fashioned notion of an eye for an eye, or do 
unto others.  grin


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



- Original Message - 
From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options



OK...Lets look at this whole issue with one other twist.
Let's say you need a large pipe to carry 100 Mb full duplex between 2 
locations.  You happen top have a $15K link sitting on the shelf that you 
could deploy.  In doing so you may wipe out or interfere with the poor 
little WISP 2 miles away.  What do you do???


Incur more expenses by buying another link that will not cause 
interference??


Do you pay the ILEC/CLEC?etc for a 100 Mb pipe???

Or do you put it up and just go with it???

I bet I know what most of you would do.  Werger or not you will print it 
is another issue.


But let's hear it.
What would ya do?.

-B-

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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-13 Thread Tom DeReggi

You are still totally missing the point...

In doing so you may wipe out or interfere with the poor little WISP 2 
miles away.  What do you do???


Thats not generally the outcome. If the little WISP down the street just 
goes away, there is no problem.  But he doesn't because his whole livelihood 
is invested in his WISP business.  What happens is after  you wipe out the 
poor little WISP 2 miles away,  the little WISP buys a big club (big radio) 
and wipes you out back, and smiles after he Wiped out the poor little you.


This isn't a battle about 15K gear and cheap gear.  Its been proven over and 
over again that cooperation is more effective than fighting a WAR.


The BIG rich over confident provider no longer has the upper hand to bully 
the little poor WISP2, just because they are better funded.  Its amazing 
what harm a $200 WARboard and 400mw card will do with a $180 3ft PAC 
Wireless dish.  Not that I'm suggest attempt harm. I'm just saying WISP2 can 
now afford to grab just a big a club as you can. This is a REAL Risk, and 
equalizes the playing field.  You play nice or everyone looses.


I never said its not occasionally necessary to install over someone else. 
You do what you need to do, to get the link done. I simply suggested to 
avoid it when you can, unless their was just cause to do other wise. I just 
can't understand why participants on this thread have not grasped this 
simple principle.  If you don't get it by now, I'm wasting my breath.  I'm 
done with this one.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband

- Original Message - 
From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options



OK...Lets look at this whole issue with one other twist.
Let's say you need a large pipe to carry 100 Mb full duplex between 2 
locations.  You happen top have a $15K link sitting on the shelf that you 
could deploy.  In doing so you may wipe out or interfere with the poor 
little WISP 2 miles away.  What do you do???


Incur more expenses by buying another link that will not cause 
interference??


Do you pay the ILEC/CLEC?etc for a 100 Mb pipe???

Or do you put it up and just go with it???

I bet I know what most of you would do.  Werger or not you will print it 
is another issue.


But let's hear it.
What would ya do?.

-B-

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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-13 Thread Bob Moldashel
Oh Comon' Dude.  A life safety system on unlicensed microwave???  
What idiot would put the E911 system on Part 15 to begin with?  That's 
just a lawsuit looking to happen.


And as far as your second example...what happens when the other WISP is 
uneducated and builds a crappy system and his network is up and down and 
operates poorly??  What happens when the end user starts bitchin 
then???  What happens when Chavez stops selling us oil???  What happens 
when the mailman suddenly wants Saturdays off???  What happens..


If the competition gets blown off the air, I sell my service to the 
customer and work hard not to suffer the issues that he had with the 
prior provider. The customer in most cases goes with price and 
reliability, not type of service method.  You know that


:-)

-B-





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

Well, SOP in a case like this is to find a way to not cause 
catastrophic interference to anyone that was there first.


Lets change your example a little bit.  Lets make it a link that the 
E911 system uses.  You gonna blow it offline just because you can?  
Should you do that?  What would your reputation in the community be?


Now lets go up another level.  When you blow your competitor offline, 
what does that do the your industry's reputation?  Did you really gain 
anything, in the long run, by doing so?  Nope.  You hurt him AND you 
shot yourself in the foot by causing more doubt about your technology 
choices.


Then there's always that ol' fashioned notion of an eye for an eye, or 
do unto others.  grin


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



- Original Message - From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options



OK...Lets look at this whole issue with one other twist.
Let's say you need a large pipe to carry 100 Mb full duplex between 2 
locations.  You happen top have a $15K link sitting on the shelf that 
you could deploy.  In doing so you may wipe out or interfere with the 
poor little WISP 2 miles away.  What do you do???


Incur more expenses by buying another link that will not cause 
interference??


Do you pay the ILEC/CLEC?etc for a 100 Mb pipe???

Or do you put it up and just go with it???

I bet I know what most of you would do.  Werger or not you will print 
it is another issue.


But let's hear it.
What would ya do?.

-B-

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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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






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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-13 Thread Bob Moldashel

Tom,

You have been responding to this whole thread like I have been attacking 
your position.  I'm not.


My statement in a summary...  Efficient use of the spectrum has 
multiple positions.  Unfortunately others may not fit into my business 
plan. 

I am not saying blow them off the air and not work with them. I am 
saying that if someone comes along and can't make their new service work 
because I occupy the whole band then that sucks to be him.  There are 
going to be situations where people are going to get interfered with.  
If there wasn't, the Commission would have licensed the band as you know.


There will be survivors and there will be descendants.

I like being a survivor

-B-

BTW:  The WAR board is not type accepted.  But you know that.  :-P



Tom DeReggi wrote:


You are still totally missing the point...

In doing so you may wipe out or interfere with the poor little WISP 2 
miles away.  What do you do???



Thats not generally the outcome. If the little WISP down the street 
just goes away, there is no problem.  But he doesn't because his whole 
livelihood is invested in his WISP business.  What happens is after  
you wipe out the poor little WISP 2 miles away,  the little WISP buys 
a big club (big radio) and wipes you out back, and smiles after he 
Wiped out the poor little you.


This isn't a battle about 15K gear and cheap gear.  Its been proven 
over and over again that cooperation is more effective than fighting a 
WAR.


The BIG rich over confident provider no longer has the upper hand to 
bully the little poor WISP2, just because they are better funded.  Its 
amazing what harm a $200 WARboard and 400mw card will do with a $180 
3ft PAC Wireless dish.  Not that I'm suggest attempt harm. I'm just 
saying WISP2 can now afford to grab just a big a club as you can. This 
is a REAL Risk, and equalizes the playing field.  You play nice or 
everyone looses.


I never said its not occasionally necessary to install over someone 
else. You do what you need to do, to get the link done. I simply 
suggested to avoid it when you can, unless their was just cause to do 
other wise. I just can't understand why participants on this thread 
have not grasped this simple principle.  If you don't get it by now, 
I'm wasting my breath.  I'm done with this one.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband

- Original Message - From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options



OK...Lets look at this whole issue with one other twist.
Let's say you need a large pipe to carry 100 Mb full duplex between 2 
locations.  You happen top have a $15K link sitting on the shelf that 
you could deploy.  In doing so you may wipe out or interfere with the 
poor little WISP 2 miles away.  What do you do???


Incur more expenses by buying another link that will not cause 
interference??


Do you pay the ILEC/CLEC?etc for a 100 Mb pipe???

Or do you put it up and just go with it???

I bet I know what most of you would do.  Werger or not you will print 
it is another issue.


But let's hear it.
What would ya do?.

-B-

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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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






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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-13 Thread michaeldavidlake
 
 The right thing to do is to coordinate the install with the wisp so you can 
monitor the exsisting link while installing the new and have plan B ready to go 
if there is a conflict. No harm no foul.  That can be a challenge if you don't 
know the wisp is even there.  
 
 I have done this repeatedly with Government agencies trying to use unlicensed 
gear in an ever growing wisp markets.  For you non believers a spectrum scan 
gives you great insite into what is out there. So you can plan ( engineer ) 
around it. If done properly, 360* on a verticle, horizontal, and diagnal 
polarity.  You get great results.  You may find complete spectrum 
saturation...you may find nothing..What ever you do don't do anything the right 
way and don't invest any money to do it right either.
 
What do most do. Well I don't think I need to cover that, your point is 
well made. In south America several yrs ago it was called the AMP WARs which 
some members of this digest still do today. Thats the kind of unprofessionalism 
I am talking about. Thats also why it confuses me that so call professionals 
will use the cheapest spectrum hogs on the market and then brag about how big 
thier customer base is just to save a dollar and then bitch when they have 
issues with performance because they short cut and didn't bother with doing the 
home work.  Youv'e gotta love Fluff.  CHEAPER doesn't mean BETTER I don't care 
how well it suites your pocket book.  If you can't afford to do it right then 
don't do it.  If that means you need to hire someone to figure it out for you 
then hire them, but make damn sure you pay them if you want thier help in the 
future.  If your not willing to invest in yourself then what kind of msg are 
you sending to your customers.Just keep sending me y
 our check.. I'll have a tech look into first thing tomorrow. Another truck 
roll and more unessesary time and money spent.  I bet with all the truck rolls, 
time and money spent on troubleshooting you could have bought a magic carpet to 
deliver the customers bandwidth personaly. Point being with all the money 
wasted you could have bought the better gear, had a better network, do I dare 
say, a reliable network. It all adds up to dollars and sense.  Unfortunatly the 
guy with the dollars seems to be the guy missing the sense.
 
Mike
 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 7:38 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options


You are still totally missing the point... 
 
 In doing so you may wipe out or interfere with the poor little WISP 2  miles 
 away. What do you do??? 
 
Thats not generally the outcome. If the little WISP down the street just goes 
away, there is no problem. But he doesn't because his whole livelihood is 
invested in his WISP business. What happens is after you wipe out the poor 
little WISP 2 miles away, the little WISP buys a big club (big radio) and wipes 
you out back, and smiles after he Wiped out the poor little you. 
 
This isn't a battle about 15K gear and cheap gear. Its been proven over and 
over again that cooperation is more effective than fighting a WAR. 
 
The BIG rich over confident provider no longer has the upper hand to bully the 
little poor WISP2, just because they are better funded. Its amazing what harm a 
$200 WARboard and 400mw card will do with a $180 3ft PAC Wireless dish. Not 
that I'm suggest attempt harm. I'm just saying WISP2 can now afford to grab 
just a big a club as you can. This is a REAL Risk, and equalizes the playing 
field. You play nice or everyone looses. 
 
I never said its not occasionally necessary to install over someone else. You 
do what you need to do, to get the link done. I simply suggested to avoid it 
when you can, unless their was just cause to do other wise. I just can't 
understand why participants on this thread have not grasped this simple 
principle. If you don't get it by now, I'm wasting my breath. I'm done with 
this one. 
 
Tom DeReggi 
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc 
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband 
 
- Original Message - From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 4:55 PM 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options 
 
 OK...Lets look at this whole issue with one other twist. 
 Let's say you need a large pipe to carry 100 Mb full duplex between 2  
 locations. You happen top have a $15K link sitting on the shelf that you  
 could deploy. In doing so you may wipe out or interfere with the poor  
 little WISP 2 miles away. What do you do??? 
 
 Incur more expenses by buying another link that will not cause  
 interference?? 
 
 Do you pay the ILEC/CLEC?etc for a 100 Mb pipe??? 
 
 Or do you put it up and just go with it??? 
 
 I bet I know what most of you would do. Werger or not you will print it  is 
 another issue. 
 
 But let's hear it. 
 What would ya do?. 
 
 -B- 
 
 --  Bob Moldashel

Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-13 Thread Tom DeReggi

I'll accept that reply, without disagreeance.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options



Tom,

You have been responding to this whole thread like I have been attacking 
your position.  I'm not.


My statement in a summary...  Efficient use of the spectrum has 
multiple positions.  Unfortunately others may not fit into my business 
plan. 

I am not saying blow them off the air and not work with them. I am 
saying that if someone comes along and can't make their new service work 
because I occupy the whole band then that sucks to be him.  There are 
going to be situations where people are going to get interfered with.  
If there wasn't, the Commission would have licensed the band as you know.


There will be survivors and there will be descendants.

I like being a survivor

-B-

BTW:  The WAR board is not type accepted.  But you know that.  :-P



Tom DeReggi wrote:


You are still totally missing the point...

In doing so you may wipe out or interfere with the poor little WISP 2 
miles away.  What do you do???



Thats not generally the outcome. If the little WISP down the street 
just goes away, there is no problem.  But he doesn't because his whole 
livelihood is invested in his WISP business.  What happens is after  
you wipe out the poor little WISP 2 miles away,  the little WISP buys 
a big club (big radio) and wipes you out back, and smiles after he 
Wiped out the poor little you.


This isn't a battle about 15K gear and cheap gear.  Its been proven 
over and over again that cooperation is more effective than fighting a 
WAR.


The BIG rich over confident provider no longer has the upper hand to 
bully the little poor WISP2, just because they are better funded.  Its 
amazing what harm a $200 WARboard and 400mw card will do with a $180 
3ft PAC Wireless dish.  Not that I'm suggest attempt harm. I'm just 
saying WISP2 can now afford to grab just a big a club as you can. This 
is a REAL Risk, and equalizes the playing field.  You play nice or 
everyone looses.


I never said its not occasionally necessary to install over someone 
else. You do what you need to do, to get the link done. I simply 
suggested to avoid it when you can, unless their was just cause to do 
other wise. I just can't understand why participants on this thread 
have not grasped this simple principle.  If you don't get it by now, 
I'm wasting my breath.  I'm done with this one.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband

- Original Message - From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options



OK...Lets look at this whole issue with one other twist.
Let's say you need a large pipe to carry 100 Mb full duplex between 2 
locations.  You happen top have a $15K link sitting on the shelf that 
you could deploy.  In doing so you may wipe out or interfere with the 
poor little WISP 2 miles away.  What do you do???


Incur more expenses by buying another link that will not cause 
interference??


Do you pay the ILEC/CLEC?etc for a 100 Mb pipe???

Or do you put it up and just go with it???

I bet I know what most of you would do.  Werger or not you will print 
it is another issue.


But let's hear it.
What would ya do?.

-B-

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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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






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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-12 Thread John Scrivner

Replies below:

Matt Liotta wrote:


Guys,

We are now exceeding Orthogon's capacity on a regular basis. 


Wow! Business must be good!

We are backhauling as much as we can with fiber, but that isn't an 
option in the suburbs. We have had good success with BridgeWave's 
products, but the distance is a problem. Any suggestions on a product 
that can do high throughput in the 5-10 mile range?


Look at licensed. I know that is obvious but I think it is the only way 
short of bonding Orthogons together. I thought the max distance for 70 
GHz gbps radios was about 7 miles. It has been a while since I read the 
specs. I am sure the rain fade would be an issue here. There is actually 
much less attenuation of 70 GHz than there is at 60 GHz. There is a 
spike of absorption of 60 GHz where water molecules eat that signal. It 
gets better above 60 GHz. I believe that you can go through the air 
better with as high as 100 GHz than what you can with 60 GHz. Obviously 
there are other licensed options in lower frequency space as well. I 
know Charles has some experience running licensed high capacity 
backhaul. Charles, what do you run for backhaul over 100 mbps FDX?


I am looking for something that can easily exceed 100Mbps full duplex. 
I know the specs of the Orthogon Spectra and no it doesn't really get 
us past 100Mbps full duplex.


24Ghz unlicensed is looking like the sweet spot for us.


I thought 24 GHz unlicensed had limited bandspace which made the top end 
about 100 mbps FDX?


I bet Bob Moldashel has hit this same wall before. What do you do in 
this situation Bob? He was one of the guys who helped put New York City 
data traffic back together after 911. Any thoughts Bob?

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

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

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


RE: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-12 Thread Andrea Coppini (AIR Networks)
Are you looking at Unlicensed?  I'm a fan of Mikrotik for high throughput,
long distance links.  With bonding you can easily get  100Mbps speeds, just
keep adding links as your need grows.

See this:  150 Mbps FDX, unlicensed, with failover
http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Super_wireless_test



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: 12 December 2006 4:44 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

Guys,

We are now exceeding Orthogon's capacity on a regular basis. We are
backhauling as much as we can with fiber, but that isn't an option in the
suburbs. We have had good success with BridgeWave's products, but the
distance is a problem. Any suggestions on a product that can do high
throughput in the 5-10 mile range? I am looking for something that can
easily exceed 100Mbps full duplex. I know the specs of the Orthogon Spectra
and no it doesn't really get us past 100Mbps full duplex.

24Ghz unlicensed is looking like the sweet spot for us.

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

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-12 Thread Brad Belton
While I'm a fan of MikroTik, the test setup you show is not a viable
solution in a real world deployment.

Best,

Brad

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Andrea Coppini (AIR Networks)
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:27 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

Are you looking at Unlicensed?  I'm a fan of Mikrotik for high throughput,
long distance links.  With bonding you can easily get  100Mbps speeds, just
keep adding links as your need grows.

See this:  150 Mbps FDX, unlicensed, with failover
http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Super_wireless_test



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: 12 December 2006 4:44 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

Guys,

We are now exceeding Orthogon's capacity on a regular basis. We are
backhauling as much as we can with fiber, but that isn't an option in the
suburbs. We have had good success with BridgeWave's products, but the
distance is a problem. Any suggestions on a product that can do high
throughput in the 5-10 mile range? I am looking for something that can
easily exceed 100Mbps full duplex. I know the specs of the Orthogon Spectra
and no it doesn't really get us past 100Mbps full duplex.

24Ghz unlicensed is looking like the sweet spot for us.

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

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-12 Thread Bob Moldashel

170 Mb FD Dragonwave...

About $20K





Matt Liotta wrote:


Guys,

We are now exceeding Orthogon's capacity on a regular basis. We are 
backhauling as much as we can with fiber, but that isn't an option in 
the suburbs. We have had good success with BridgeWave's products, but 
the distance is a problem. Any suggestions on a product that can do 
high throughput in the 5-10 mile range? I am looking for something 
that can easily exceed 100Mbps full duplex. I know the specs of the 
Orthogon Spectra and no it doesn't really get us past 100Mbps full 
duplex.


24Ghz unlicensed is looking like the sweet spot for us.

-Matt




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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-12 Thread Brad Belton
Agreed, 18GHz should fit the bill nicely for 100Mbps in the 5-10 miles
range.  80GHz will do 100Mbps - 1000Mbps up to about 3-4miles.  I hear 65GHz
will do 100Mbps - 1000Mbps beyond 5miles.

Of course it all depends on your acceptable uptime requirement.

Best,

Brad

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:34 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

Replies below:

Matt Liotta wrote:

 Guys,

 We are now exceeding Orthogon's capacity on a regular basis. 

Wow! Business must be good!

 We are backhauling as much as we can with fiber, but that isn't an 
 option in the suburbs. We have had good success with BridgeWave's 
 products, but the distance is a problem. Any suggestions on a product 
 that can do high throughput in the 5-10 mile range?

Look at licensed. I know that is obvious but I think it is the only way 
short of bonding Orthogons together. I thought the max distance for 70 
GHz gbps radios was about 7 miles. It has been a while since I read the 
specs. I am sure the rain fade would be an issue here. There is actually 
much less attenuation of 70 GHz than there is at 60 GHz. There is a 
spike of absorption of 60 GHz where water molecules eat that signal. It 
gets better above 60 GHz. I believe that you can go through the air 
better with as high as 100 GHz than what you can with 60 GHz. Obviously 
there are other licensed options in lower frequency space as well. I 
know Charles has some experience running licensed high capacity 
backhaul. Charles, what do you run for backhaul over 100 mbps FDX?

 I am looking for something that can easily exceed 100Mbps full duplex. 
 I know the specs of the Orthogon Spectra and no it doesn't really get 
 us past 100Mbps full duplex.

 24Ghz unlicensed is looking like the sweet spot for us.

I thought 24 GHz unlicensed had limited bandspace which made the top end 
about 100 mbps FDX?

I bet Bob Moldashel has hit this same wall before. What do you do in 
this situation Bob? He was one of the guys who helped put New York City 
data traffic back together after 911. Any thoughts Bob?
Scriv
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-12 Thread Tim Kerns

Matt,

The Orthagon 600 series is supposed to do 300 mb on a 30 Mhz channel. I 
believe they do this using both vert and hor polarity. Is this the system 
you are out growing?


Tim Kerns

- Original Message - 
From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 8:39 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options


While I'm a fan of MikroTik, the test setup you show is not a viable
solution in a real world deployment.

Best,

Brad

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Andrea Coppini (AIR Networks)
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:27 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

Are you looking at Unlicensed?  I'm a fan of Mikrotik for high throughput,
long distance links.  With bonding you can easily get  100Mbps speeds, just
keep adding links as your need grows.

See this:  150 Mbps FDX, unlicensed, with failover
http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Super_wireless_test



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: 12 December 2006 4:44 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

Guys,

We are now exceeding Orthogon's capacity on a regular basis. We are
backhauling as much as we can with fiber, but that isn't an option in the
suburbs. We have had good success with BridgeWave's products, but the
distance is a problem. Any suggestions on a product that can do high
throughput in the 5-10 mile range? I am looking for something that can
easily exceed 100Mbps full duplex. I know the specs of the Orthogon Spectra
and no it doesn't really get us past 100Mbps full duplex.

24Ghz unlicensed is looking like the sweet spot for us.

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

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

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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-12 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181

What distances do you need? 5 to 10 miles is a big swing for some gear

What's your budget?

A series of 60 gig radios might work well for ya.

Certainly the Dragonwave 24 gig gear should do.

You might also look at Harris or Microwave networks licensed gear.
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 7:44 AM
Subject: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options



Guys,

We are now exceeding Orthogon's capacity on a regular basis. We are 
backhauling as much as we can with fiber, but that isn't an option in 
the suburbs. We have had good success with BridgeWave's products, but 
the distance is a problem. Any suggestions on a product that can do high 
throughput in the 5-10 mile range? I am looking for something that can 
easily exceed 100Mbps full duplex. I know the specs of the Orthogon 
Spectra and no it doesn't really get us past 100Mbps full duplex.


24Ghz unlicensed is looking like the sweet spot for us.

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

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

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-12 Thread Matt Liotta

Andrea Coppini (AIR Networks) wrote:

Are you looking at Unlicensed?  I'm a fan of Mikrotik for high throughput,
long distance links.  With bonding you can easily get  100Mbps speeds, just
keep adding links as your need grows.

See this:  150 Mbps FDX, unlicensed, with failover
http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Super_wireless_test


  

We won't use Wi-Fi radios for backhaul and we don't want to bond.

-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-12 Thread Bob Moldashel
I have a handful of these in NYC and Wash DC.  They kick ass and the 
company backs them 150%. They are my first licensed choice.  Ceragon is 
my second.


-B-



Bob Moldashel wrote:


170 Mb FD Dragonwave...

About $20K





Matt Liotta wrote:


Guys,

We are now exceeding Orthogon's capacity on a regular basis. We are 
backhauling as much as we can with fiber, but that isn't an option in 
the suburbs. We have had good success with BridgeWave's products, but 
the distance is a problem. Any suggestions on a product that can do 
high throughput in the 5-10 mile range? I am looking for something 
that can easily exceed 100Mbps full duplex. I know the specs of the 
Orthogon Spectra and no it doesn't really get us past 100Mbps full 
duplex.


24Ghz unlicensed is looking like the sweet spot for us.

-Matt








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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-12 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181

fyi,

I believe that it's oxygen that absorbs 60 gig.  Not so much rain.  Often 
companies tie 60 gig and FSO together for short hop very high speed 
redundant links.  Each fades differently in different weather.


Note, everything above 10 gig has rain fade, some bands just more so than 
others as I understand it.


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



- Original Message - 
From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 8:33 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options



Replies below:

Matt Liotta wrote:


Guys,

We are now exceeding Orthogon's capacity on a regular basis.


Wow! Business must be good!

We are backhauling as much as we can with fiber, but that isn't an option 
in the suburbs. We have had good success with BridgeWave's products, but 
the distance is a problem. Any suggestions on a product that can do high 
throughput in the 5-10 mile range?


Look at licensed. I know that is obvious but I think it is the only way 
short of bonding Orthogons together. I thought the max distance for 70 GHz 
gbps radios was about 7 miles. It has been a while since I read the specs. 
I am sure the rain fade would be an issue here. There is actually much 
less attenuation of 70 GHz than there is at 60 GHz. There is a spike of 
absorption of 60 GHz where water molecules eat that signal. It gets better 
above 60 GHz. I believe that you can go through the air better with as 
high as 100 GHz than what you can with 60 GHz. Obviously there are other 
licensed options in lower frequency space as well. I know Charles has some 
experience running licensed high capacity backhaul. Charles, what do you 
run for backhaul over 100 mbps FDX?


I am looking for something that can easily exceed 100Mbps full duplex. I 
know the specs of the Orthogon Spectra and no it doesn't really get us 
past 100Mbps full duplex.


24Ghz unlicensed is looking like the sweet spot for us.


I thought 24 GHz unlicensed had limited bandspace which made the top end 
about 100 mbps FDX?


I bet Bob Moldashel has hit this same wall before. What do you do in this 
situation Bob? He was one of the guys who helped put New York City data 
traffic back together after 911. Any thoughts Bob?

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

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

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-12 Thread W.D.McKinney
- Original Message -
From: Bob Moldashel
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 07:49:39 -0900
Subject:
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options


 170 Mb FD Dragonwave...
 
 About $20K
 
 
 

Hi Matt,

I agree with Bob here, the Dragonwave solution is your ticket to reliable 
service at the speeds you require.

-Dee



 
 
 Matt Liotta wrote:
 
  Guys,
 
  We are now exceeding Orthogon's capacity on a regular basis. We are 
  backhauling as much as we can with fiber, but that isn't an option in 
  the suburbs. We have had good success with BridgeWave's products, but 
  the distance is a problem. Any suggestions on a product that can do 
  high throughput in the 5-10 mile range? I am looking for something 
  that can easily exceed 100Mbps full duplex. I know the specs of the 
  Orthogon Spectra and no it doesn't really get us past 100Mbps full 
  duplex.
 
  24Ghz unlicensed is looking like the sweet spot for us.
 
  -Matt
 
 
 
 -- 
 Bob Moldashel
 Lakeland Communications, Inc.
 Broadband Deployment Group
 1350 Lincoln Avenue
 Holbrook, New York 11741 USA
 800-479-9195 Toll Free US  Canada
 631-585-5558 Fax
 516-551-1131 Cell
 
 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-12 Thread Matt Liotta

Tim Kerns wrote:
The Orthagon 600 series is supposed to do 300 mb on a 30 Mhz channel. 
I believe they do this using both vert and hor polarity. Is this the 
system you are out growing?


First of all, 300Mbps is an aggregate figure. Second, in a low latency 
deployment at 5-10 miles it is not possible to get full throughput on an 
Orthogon.


-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-12 Thread Matt Liotta

John Scrivner wrote:

Wow! Business must be good!

That depends on your perspective. We have a ton of orders and are racing 
to service them all. The more we install the more capacity upgrades we 
have to do meaning even more installs. This kind of growth is extremely 
challenging because if it isn't done correctly we can destroy the company.
Look at licensed. I know that is obvious but I think it is the only 
way short of bonding Orthogons together. I thought the max distance 
for 70 GHz gbps radios was about 7 miles. It has been a while since I 
read the specs. I am sure the rain fade would be an issue here. There 
is actually much less attenuation of 70 GHz than there is at 60 GHz. 
There is a spike of absorption of 60 GHz where water molecules eat 
that signal. It gets better above 60 GHz. I believe that you can go 
through the air better with as high as 100 GHz than what you can with 
60 GHz. Obviously there are other licensed options in lower frequency 
space as well. I know Charles has some experience running licensed 
high capacity backhaul. Charles, what do you run for backhaul over 100 
mbps FDX?


Licensed doesn't make a lot of sense for us. We simply don't have the 
ability to predict where are growth is coming from. We routinely upgrade 
existing backhauls and/or reconnect our POPs together in different ways 
to increase our capacity and redundancy. With licensed we are forced to 
have a static configuration.
I thought 24 GHz unlicensed had limited bandspace which made the top 
end about 100 mbps FDX?


DragonWave seems to have a 24Ghz unlicensed product that can do 200Mbps 
full duplex.


-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-12 Thread Bob Moldashel

24 Ghz. won't do 5-10 miles.

The other option is an Exalt 2.4 Ghz. or 5 Ghz radio.   100 Mb Full 
Duplex (Yes 2.4 Ghz.) for around $15-16K plus antennas


-B-



Matt Liotta wrote:


John Scrivner wrote:


Wow! Business must be good!

That depends on your perspective. We have a ton of orders and are 
racing to service them all. The more we install the more capacity 
upgrades we have to do meaning even more installs. This kind of growth 
is extremely challenging because if it isn't done correctly we can 
destroy the company.


Look at licensed. I know that is obvious but I think it is the only 
way short of bonding Orthogons together. I thought the max distance 
for 70 GHz gbps radios was about 7 miles. It has been a while since I 
read the specs. I am sure the rain fade would be an issue here. There 
is actually much less attenuation of 70 GHz than there is at 60 GHz. 
There is a spike of absorption of 60 GHz where water molecules eat 
that signal. It gets better above 60 GHz. I believe that you can go 
through the air better with as high as 100 GHz than what you can with 
60 GHz. Obviously there are other licensed options in lower frequency 
space as well. I know Charles has some experience running licensed 
high capacity backhaul. Charles, what do you run for backhaul over 
100 mbps FDX?


Licensed doesn't make a lot of sense for us. We simply don't have the 
ability to predict where are growth is coming from. We routinely 
upgrade existing backhauls and/or reconnect our POPs together in 
different ways to increase our capacity and redundancy. With licensed 
we are forced to have a static configuration.


I thought 24 GHz unlicensed had limited bandspace which made the top 
end about 100 mbps FDX?


DragonWave seems to have a 24Ghz unlicensed product that can do 
200Mbps full duplex.






-Matt




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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-12 Thread Rick Harnish
My experience is showing about a max of 240 Mbps aggregate bandwidth for a
link that long.   My shortest link is about a quarter mile and is getting
283 Mbps.  

Rick Harnish
President
OnlyInternet Broadband  Wireless, Inc.
260-827-2482
Founding Member of WISPA

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 2:18 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

Tim Kerns wrote:
 The Orthagon 600 series is supposed to do 300 mb on a 30 Mhz channel. 
 I believe they do this using both vert and hor polarity. Is this the 
 system you are out growing?

First of all, 300Mbps is an aggregate figure. Second, in a low latency 
deployment at 5-10 miles it is not possible to get full throughput on an 
Orthogon.

-Matt

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-12 Thread Mike Bushard, Jr
I can vouch for Dragon Wave. We have 2 11Ghz links, rock solid, Latency that
rivals fiber.  


Mike Bushard, Jr
Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC
320-256-WISP (9477)
320-256-9478 Fax
 
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:44 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

John Scrivner wrote:
 Wow! Business must be good!

That depends on your perspective. We have a ton of orders and are racing 
to service them all. The more we install the more capacity upgrades we 
have to do meaning even more installs. This kind of growth is extremely 
challenging because if it isn't done correctly we can destroy the company.
 Look at licensed. I know that is obvious but I think it is the only 
 way short of bonding Orthogons together. I thought the max distance 
 for 70 GHz gbps radios was about 7 miles. It has been a while since I 
 read the specs. I am sure the rain fade would be an issue here. There 
 is actually much less attenuation of 70 GHz than there is at 60 GHz. 
 There is a spike of absorption of 60 GHz where water molecules eat 
 that signal. It gets better above 60 GHz. I believe that you can go 
 through the air better with as high as 100 GHz than what you can with 
 60 GHz. Obviously there are other licensed options in lower frequency 
 space as well. I know Charles has some experience running licensed 
 high capacity backhaul. Charles, what do you run for backhaul over 100 
 mbps FDX?

Licensed doesn't make a lot of sense for us. We simply don't have the 
ability to predict where are growth is coming from. We routinely upgrade 
existing backhauls and/or reconnect our POPs together in different ways 
to increase our capacity and redundancy. With licensed we are forced to 
have a static configuration.
 I thought 24 GHz unlicensed had limited bandspace which made the top 
 end about 100 mbps FDX?

DragonWave seems to have a 24Ghz unlicensed product that can do 200Mbps 
full duplex.

-Matt

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-12 Thread Travis Johnson
How about Dragonwave 18ghz or 11ghz? I think they make a 200mbps product 
in both of those bands.


Travis
Microserv

Bob Moldashel wrote:

24 Ghz. won't do 5-10 miles.

The other option is an Exalt 2.4 Ghz. or 5 Ghz radio.   100 Mb Full 
Duplex (Yes 2.4 Ghz.) for around $15-16K plus antennas


-B-



Matt Liotta wrote:


John Scrivner wrote:


Wow! Business must be good!

That depends on your perspective. We have a ton of orders and are 
racing to service them all. The more we install the more capacity 
upgrades we have to do meaning even more installs. This kind of 
growth is extremely challenging because if it isn't done correctly we 
can destroy the company.


Look at licensed. I know that is obvious but I think it is the only 
way short of bonding Orthogons together. I thought the max distance 
for 70 GHz gbps radios was about 7 miles. It has been a while since 
I read the specs. I am sure the rain fade would be an issue here. 
There is actually much less attenuation of 70 GHz than there is at 
60 GHz. There is a spike of absorption of 60 GHz where water 
molecules eat that signal. It gets better above 60 GHz. I believe 
that you can go through the air better with as high as 100 GHz than 
what you can with 60 GHz. Obviously there are other licensed options 
in lower frequency space as well. I know Charles has some experience 
running licensed high capacity backhaul. Charles, what do you run 
for backhaul over 100 mbps FDX?


Licensed doesn't make a lot of sense for us. We simply don't have the 
ability to predict where are growth is coming from. We routinely 
upgrade existing backhauls and/or reconnect our POPs together in 
different ways to increase our capacity and redundancy. With licensed 
we are forced to have a static configuration.


I thought 24 GHz unlicensed had limited bandspace which made the top 
end about 100 mbps FDX?


DragonWave seems to have a 24Ghz unlicensed product that can do 
200Mbps full duplex.






-Matt





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-12 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181

NOo

NO one should buy ANY radio anymore that uses the entire band and is always 
on.  No more WMux fiascos needed.


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



- Original Message - 
From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options



24 Ghz. won't do 5-10 miles.

The other option is an Exalt 2.4 Ghz. or 5 Ghz radio.   100 Mb Full Duplex 
(Yes 2.4 Ghz.) for around $15-16K plus antennas


-B-



Matt Liotta wrote:


John Scrivner wrote:


Wow! Business must be good!

That depends on your perspective. We have a ton of orders and are racing 
to service them all. The more we install the more capacity upgrades we 
have to do meaning even more installs. This kind of growth is extremely 
challenging because if it isn't done correctly we can destroy the 
company.


Look at licensed. I know that is obvious but I think it is the only way 
short of bonding Orthogons together. I thought the max distance for 70 
GHz gbps radios was about 7 miles. It has been a while since I read the 
specs. I am sure the rain fade would be an issue here. There is actually 
much less attenuation of 70 GHz than there is at 60 GHz. There is a 
spike of absorption of 60 GHz where water molecules eat that signal. It 
gets better above 60 GHz. I believe that you can go through the air 
better with as high as 100 GHz than what you can with 60 GHz. Obviously 
there are other licensed options in lower frequency space as well. I 
know Charles has some experience running licensed high capacity 
backhaul. Charles, what do you run for backhaul over 100 mbps FDX?


Licensed doesn't make a lot of sense for us. We simply don't have the 
ability to predict where are growth is coming from. We routinely upgrade 
existing backhauls and/or reconnect our POPs together in different ways 
to increase our capacity and redundancy. With licensed we are forced to 
have a static configuration.


I thought 24 GHz unlicensed had limited bandspace which made the top end 
about 100 mbps FDX?


DragonWave seems to have a 24Ghz unlicensed product that can do 200Mbps 
full duplex.






-Matt




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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-12 Thread Matt Liotta

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

NOo

NO one should buy ANY radio anymore that uses the entire band and is 
always on.  No more WMux fiascos needed.



Why not?

-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-12 Thread Erik Jansson
We have done Dragon Wave with links over 20 miles at 18ghz.  with 4 ft 
dishes.(23ghz is very low powered and would get you more then a few 
miles)  We have seen a few minutes a year in rain fade as it is pushing 
the limits.  There is now an high power unit that has about 10db more tx 
power then ours,  they also have an 11GHz product which of course has 
fewer issues with heavy rain.   Just be forewarned that a 4 or 6 foot 
dish at 18ghz has a  beam width of less then 1deg and and fine tuning is 
time consuming and very touchy.   They also have to be mounted on a very 
rigid structure so if it is going on a tower it has to be a hefty or the 
wind can easily play with your alignment. Excellent gear and service 
would recommend them.


Erik

Bob Moldashel wrote:

24 Ghz. won't do 5-10 miles.

The other option is an Exalt 2.4 Ghz. or 5 Ghz radio.   100 Mb Full 
Duplex (Yes 2.4 Ghz.) for around $15-16K plus antennas


-B-



Matt Liotta wrote:


John Scrivner wrote:


Wow! Business must be good!

That depends on your perspective. We have a ton of orders and are 
racing to service them all. The more we install the more capacity 
upgrades we have to do meaning even more installs. This kind of 
growth is extremely challenging because if it isn't done correctly we 
can destroy the company.


Look at licensed. I know that is obvious but I think it is the only 
way short of bonding Orthogons together. I thought the max distance 
for 70 GHz gbps radios was about 7 miles. It has been a while since 
I read the specs. I am sure the rain fade would be an issue here. 
There is actually much less attenuation of 70 GHz than there is at 
60 GHz. There is a spike of absorption of 60 GHz where water 
molecules eat that signal. It gets better above 60 GHz. I believe 
that you can go through the air better with as high as 100 GHz than 
what you can with 60 GHz. Obviously there are other licensed options 
in lower frequency space as well. I know Charles has some experience 
running licensed high capacity backhaul. Charles, what do you run 
for backhaul over 100 mbps FDX?


Licensed doesn't make a lot of sense for us. We simply don't have the 
ability to predict where are growth is coming from. We routinely 
upgrade existing backhauls and/or reconnect our POPs together in 
different ways to increase our capacity and redundancy. With licensed 
we are forced to have a static configuration.


I thought 24 GHz unlicensed had limited bandspace which made the top 
end about 100 mbps FDX?


DragonWave seems to have a 24Ghz unlicensed product that can do 
200Mbps full duplex.






-Matt





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-12 Thread michaeldavidlake
You need to look at Nera, Ceragon, and Gigacom.
 
The Gigacom product is the only one that you can get any real long distance out 
of depending on the freq. They have licensed radios that perform very well in 
the rainforest of South America at very long distance. 60k or 40 miles for some 
applications at speeds of up to a Gig. One of if not the best Gig. radio on the 
mrkt.
 
Regards,
 
Mike 
 
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options


John Scrivner wrote: 
 Wow! Business must be good! 
 
That depends on your perspective. We have a ton of orders and are racing to 
service them all. The more we install the more capacity upgrades we have to do 
meaning even more installs. This kind of growth is extremely challenging 
because if it isn't done correctly we can destroy the company. 
 Look at licensed. I know that is obvious but I think it is the only  way 
 short of bonding Orthogons together. I thought the max distance  for 70 GHz 
 gbps radios was about 7 miles. It has been a while since I  read the specs. 
 I am sure the rain fade would be an issue here. There  is actually much less 
 attenuation of 70 GHz than there is at 60 GHz.  There is a spike of 
 absorption of 60 GHz where water molecules eat  that signal. It gets better 
 above 60 GHz. I believe that you can go  through the air better with as high 
 as 100 GHz than what you can with  60 GHz. Obviously there are other 
 licensed options in lower frequency  space as well. I know Charles has some 
 experience running licensed  high capacity backhaul. Charles, what do you 
 run for backhaul over 100  mbps FDX? 
 
Licensed doesn't make a lot of sense for us. We simply don't have the ability 
to predict where are growth is coming from. We routinely upgrade existing 
backhauls and/or reconnect our POPs together in different ways to increase our 
capacity and redundancy. With licensed we are forced to have a static 
configuration. 
 I thought 24 GHz unlicensed had limited bandspace which made the top  end 
 about 100 mbps FDX? 
 
DragonWave seems to have a 24Ghz unlicensed product that can do 200Mbps full 
duplex. 
 
-Matt 
 
-- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org 
 
Subscribe/Unsubscribe: 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 
 
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 

Check out the new AOL.  Most comprehensive set of free safety and security 
tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free 
AOL Mail and more.
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-12 Thread Tom DeReggi

Why not?


Because its greedy.
And when your competitors is unsensitive to the fact that you are greedy, he 
combats your spectrum/radio, and you or he has no where to go (spectrum 
wise) for a resolution, he will win because he doesn;t have customers yet, 
and you do, so you will move to protect your revenue.  Basically by using 
the full band, you are guaranteeing that anyone that deploys has no choice 
but to fight you for spectrum, meaning any channel they choose will 
interfere with you.  Sure you can go narrow beam antenna, but its jsut a 
matter of time until someone bangs into you.


The question that one asks is WHY? If you ahve an option that doesn't take 
the whole band, why would you choose one that does? Those decissions don't 
usually make friends, and non-friends tend to interfere.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options



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

NOo

NO one should buy ANY radio anymore that uses the entire band and is 
always on.  No more WMux fiascos needed.



Why not?

-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-12 Thread Matt Liotta

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

The Gigacom product is the only one that you can get any real long distance out 
of depending on the freq. They have licensed radios that perform very well in 
the rainforest of South America at very long distance. 60k or 40 miles for some 
applications at speeds of up to a Gig. One of if not the best Gig. radio on the 
mrkt.
  
Those radios aren't FCC certified. And no, I won't being using an 
experimental license until they are certified like the sales person 
suggested.


-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-12 Thread Brad Belton
Not only that, but is the GigE radio even available yet?

Brad

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:24 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 The Gigacom product is the only one that you can get any real long
distance out of depending on the freq. They have licensed radios that
perform very well in the rainforest of South America at very long distance.
60k or 40 miles for some applications at speeds of up to a Gig. One of if
not the best Gig. radio on the mrkt.
   
Those radios aren't FCC certified. And no, I won't being using an 
experimental license until they are certified like the sales person 
suggested.

-Matt

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-12 Thread Matt Liotta

Tom DeReggi wrote:

Because its greedy.

Its not greedy; efficient maybe, but not greedy.
And when your competitors is unsensitive to the fact that you are 
greedy, he combats your spectrum/radio, and you or he has no where to 
go (spectrum wise) for a resolution, he will win because he doesn;t 
have customers yet, and you do, so you will move to protect your 
revenue.  Basically by using the full band, you are guaranteeing that 
anyone that deploys has no choice but to fight you for spectrum, 
meaning any channel they choose will interfere with you.  Sure you can 
go narrow beam antenna, but its jsut a matter of time until someone 
bangs into you.


The above confuses me. In the situation where I have a PtP radio using 
the full band there is no colocation opportunity for a competitor on 
either side. That means the competitor would have be on a site near by 
to be affected by me and/or to affect me. If this hypothetical 
competitor doesn't have any customers then the deployment must be PtMP 
base station since a PtP wouldn't be very useful without a customer. 
Certainly the power output from a PtMP base station is going to be 
considerably less than my PtP link making it unlikely my equipment would 
be affected. Further, equipment that uses large channel widths tend to 
run simple modulations that have very good receive sensitivity.
The question that one asks is WHY? If you ahve an option that doesn't 
take the whole band, why would you choose one that does? Those 
decissions don't usually make friends, and non-friends tend to interfere.


When you put the question that way, sure, it seems silly. However, that 
assumes there is another option, which isn't necessarily the case. In 
fact, reading this thread so far seems to indicate that the available 
high throughput unlicensed radios have large channel widths.


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

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-12 Thread Matt Liotta

Matt Liotta wrote:

Its not greedy; efficient maybe, but not greedy.

Whoops... meant inefficient.

-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-12 Thread Tom DeReggi

Matt,

If you live in a remote area, with no potential interferers, then my comment 
does not apply.
But last I heard you were deploying in the middle of Urban Atlanta and 
possibly Urban DC, with the potential for many interferers eventually.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 7:39 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options



Tom DeReggi wrote:

Because its greedy.

Its not greedy; efficient maybe, but not greedy.
And when your competitors is unsensitive to the fact that you are greedy, 
he combats your spectrum/radio, and you or he has no where to go 
(spectrum wise) for a resolution, he will win because he doesn;t have 
customers yet, and you do, so you will move to protect your revenue. 
Basically by using the full band, you are guaranteeing that anyone that 
deploys has no choice but to fight you for spectrum, meaning any channel 
they choose will interfere with you.  Sure you can go narrow beam 
antenna, but its jsut a matter of time until someone bangs into you.


The above confuses me. In the situation where I have a PtP radio using the 
full band there is no colocation opportunity for a competitor on either 
side. That means the competitor would have be on a site near by to be 
affected by me and/or to affect me. If this hypothetical competitor 
doesn't have any customers then the deployment must be PtMP base station 
since a PtP wouldn't be very useful without a customer. Certainly the 
power output from a PtMP base station is going to be considerably less 
than my PtP link making it unlikely my equipment would be affected. 
Further, equipment that uses large channel widths tend to run simple 
modulations that have very good receive sensitivity.
The question that one asks is WHY? If you ahve an option that doesn't 
take the whole band, why would you choose one that does? Those decissions 
don't usually make friends, and non-friends tend to interfere.


When you put the question that way, sure, it seems silly. However, that 
assumes there is another option, which isn't necessarily the case. In 
fact, reading this thread so far seems to indicate that the available high 
throughput unlicensed radios have large channel widths.


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

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

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-12 Thread Matt Liotta

Tom DeReggi wrote:

Matt,

If you live in a remote area, with no potential interferers, then my 
comment does not apply.
But last I heard you were deploying in the middle of Urban Atlanta and 
possibly Urban DC, with the potential for many interferers eventually.


We mostly deploy in urban areas, but we do a good bit of rural as well. 
We don't really run into interference from others; mostly 
self-interference from putting too many links on a site. Again, since we 
only run PtP gear our signal well exceeds everyone else's.


-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-12 Thread Matt Larsen - Lists


The above confuses me. In the situation where I have a PtP radio using 
the full band there is no colocation opportunity for a competitor on 
either side. That means the competitor would have be on a site near by 
to be affected by me and/or to affect me. If this hypothetical 
competitor doesn't have any customers then the deployment must be PtMP 
base station since a PtP wouldn't be very useful without a customer. 
Certainly the power output from a PtMP base station is going to be 
considerably less than my PtP link making it unlikely my equipment 
would be affected. Further, equipment that uses large channel widths 
tend to run simple modulations that have very good receive sensitivity.


Several of us on this list know how to shut down these large channel 
backhauls, and have done so when they have intentionally interfered with 
our operations.  Be ready for someone to do the same to you if you try 
using a full-band backhaul.  More than one operator who thought they 
would take over the entire band got a rude surprise when the gear 
suddenly didn't work anymore. 

24ghz is a completely different story, as the beam sizes are very small 
and lots of colocation can take place.   I think you are on the right 
track with the 24ghz solution.


Matt Larsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-12 Thread Matt Liotta

Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:
Several of us on this list know how to shut down these large channel 
backhauls, and have done so when they have intentionally interfered 
with our operations.  Be ready for someone to do the same to you if 
you try using a full-band backhaul.  More than one operator who 
thought they would take over the entire band got a rude surprise when 
the gear suddenly didn't work anymore.
24ghz is a completely different story, as the beam sizes are very 
small and lots of colocation can take place.   I think you are on the 
right track with the 24ghz solution.


So you believe someone was intentionally interfering with your 
operations and your response was to do the same? I'm not sure what that 
has do with running this gear when one's intent is backhaul; not 
interference. When we sign a lease for a wireless colocation site we 
specify what frequencies we are using and agree not to interfere with an 
existing tenants. All future tenants must follow the same rules or risk 
being evicted. Tortuous interference is simply illegal and has civil 
penalties associated with it.


-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-12 Thread Bob Moldashel


It doesn't use the entire band...




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


NOo

NO one should buy ANY radio anymore that uses the entire band and is 
always on.  No more WMux fiascos needed.


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




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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-12 Thread Bob Moldashel

The GiGe radio is only 500 Mb:-)

You can do that now with 3 Ceragon or Dragonwave radios phased into 1 
antenna with much better redundancy.  If one link dies you still have 
the other two.


And they are available now with type acceptance.

-B-



Brad Belton wrote:


Not only that, but is the GigE radio even available yet?

Brad

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:24 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 


The Gigacom product is the only one that you can get any real long
   


distance out of depending on the freq. They have licensed radios that
perform very well in the rainforest of South America at very long distance.
60k or 40 miles for some applications at speeds of up to a Gig. One of if
not the best Gig. radio on the mrkt.
 

 
   

Those radios aren't FCC certified. And no, I won't being using an 
experimental license until they are certified like the sales person 
suggested.


-Matt

 




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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-12 Thread Matt Liotta

Bob Moldashel wrote:
You can do that now with 3 Ceragon or Dragonwave radios phased into 1 
antenna with much better redundancy.  If one link dies you still have 
the other two.



How are you phasing the radios together without significant loss?

-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-12 Thread Bob Moldashel

Matt Liotta wrote:


Matt Liotta wrote:


Its not greedy; efficient maybe, but not greedy.


Whoops... meant inefficient.

-Matt


100 Mb FD on a 32 Mhz. channel.That's not bad.

Besides...get the GPS syc option and you can tie in a handful of links 
on the same channel.  That makes them very efficient


-B-

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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-12 Thread Bob Moldashel
There is a matching network that goes on the rear of the antenna.  At 
higher freqs the loss is much lower than on lower freqs.


-B-




Matt Liotta wrote:


Bob Moldashel wrote:

You can do that now with 3 Ceragon or Dragonwave radios phased into 1 
antenna with much better redundancy.  If one link dies you still have 
the other two.



How are you phasing the radios together without significant loss?

-Matt




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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-12 Thread Bob Moldashel

OK...Lets have a review..

It does not use the whole band.

It has GPS sync so you can use multiple links on the same channel.  That 
makes it efficient...


It works for the application..

There is a big difference of opinion here regarding spectrum usage.  My 
way of seeing it is as follows.


1.  I always install links with the largest possible antennas to keep my 
beamwidth as narrow as possible regardless of distance.  In NYC I 
consistently use 2' antennas for links one mile or less.


2. We use only the power we need to do the job.  Many of our links are 
running 0-5 dB of output at the radio.


3. We always mount antennas using rooftop structures or adjacent 
buildings to shield us from others.


4.  Interference happens.  We have not had any interference with FD 
constant carrier radios.  Period.


Another position is why should several users be allowed to use equipment 
that eats up the band passing say a simple video stream and such??  How 
is that efficient  They are eating channels running a couple of 
megs.I'm eating it running 100 Mb FD.  How about the WISP's that are 
using 120* sector antennas and throwing RF all over the place every time 
one of his 3 subscribers decides to use their system??  How is that 
spectrum efficency???  Or the guy that uses an omni and the 1 watt amp??? 

I can go on and on.  The spectrum is limited.  That sucks.  But business 
is business and it is important to do what is necessary to provide for 
your business at the most cost effective manner possible.  Is WalMart 
going to be considerate of you if you have a little 5  10 store on the 
next block???   Of course not.  And why??? Because they are serving the 
masses at a price that the masses want and that is what it takes to 
serve the masses.  Will some of the 510 operators go out of business 
because they can't compete??  Sure they will.  Its called competition. 
And that is just what Matt is doing.  If he has the demand then he needs 
to do what is necessary.  If his business model does not allow him to 
purchase expensive licensed equipment over cheaper unlicensed equipment 
then so be it.  That's business.


I came from the 2 way radio industry.  I fought the beast (Nextel) for 
several years before it finally killed the 2-way radio industry.  I was 
somewhat fortunate because we did predominately Public Safety and 
Government accounts.  We were the ones to get up at 2AM on a Sunday to 
fix a base station while all the 2-way shops that were doing 9-5 
business customers were home sleeping.  When nextel killed 2-way 
dispatch all the other radio shops decided to start fixing Public safety 
and Govt customer equip.  The labor rate went from $100 per hour to $40 
per hour just so guys could survive. Many went out of business. Am I 
upset???  Sure.  Did I plan for my future??  Sure.  We turned on big 
time to microwave 12 years ago when most of you didn't even know about 
it. As such we have avoided the dreaded Nextel monster. Am I going to be 
able to do what I am doing forever???  Of course not.  I am already 
planning my next transition.


If most of you guys think you are going to be WISP's 10+ years from now 
I think you need to re-examine your business plan


I am sure that many will be unhappy with this rant but I think it needs 
to be real food for thought.  If I was in business and i needed 100 Mb 
FD of throughput between locations I'll be damned if I am going to spend 
extra money for equipment so I don't interfere with someone else in the 
future.


PLEASE NOTE*I AM NOT ENDORSING INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE BY ANYONE.  
So please don't say I am


Good luck!

-B-

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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-12 Thread Bob Moldashel
BTW::  While we are talking responsibility and efficiency how many of 
you guys and gals drive SUV's, Pick-Up trucks, Vans and other 8 cylinder 
vehicles  Put your hands up.  You know who you are..


:-)

-B-


Bob Moldashel wrote:


OK...Lets have a review..

It does not use the whole band.

It has GPS sync so you can use multiple links on the same channel.  
That makes it efficient...


It works for the application..

There is a big difference of opinion here regarding spectrum usage.  
My way of seeing it is as follows.


1.  I always install links with the largest possible antennas to keep 
my beamwidth as narrow as possible regardless of distance.  In NYC I 
consistently use 2' antennas for links one mile or less.


2. We use only the power we need to do the job.  Many of our links are 
running 0-5 dB of output at the radio.


3. We always mount antennas using rooftop structures or adjacent 
buildings to shield us from others.


4.  Interference happens.  We have not had any interference with FD 
constant carrier radios.  Period.


Another position is why should several users be allowed to use 
equipment that eats up the band passing say a simple video stream and 
such??  How is that efficient  They are eating channels running 
a couple of megs.I'm eating it running 100 Mb FD.  How about the 
WISP's that are using 120* sector antennas and throwing RF all over 
the place every time one of his 3 subscribers decides to use their 
system??  How is that spectrum efficency???  Or the guy that uses an 
omni and the 1 watt amp???
I can go on and on.  The spectrum is limited.  That sucks.  But 
business is business and it is important to do what is necessary to 
provide for your business at the most cost effective manner possible.  
Is WalMart going to be considerate of you if you have a little 5  10 
store on the next block???   Of course not.  And why??? Because they 
are serving the masses at a price that the masses want and that is 
what it takes to serve the masses.  Will some of the 510 operators go 
out of business because they can't compete??  Sure they will.  Its 
called competition. And that is just what Matt is doing.  If he has 
the demand then he needs to do what is necessary.  If his business 
model does not allow him to purchase expensive licensed equipment over 
cheaper unlicensed equipment then so be it.  That's business.


I came from the 2 way radio industry.  I fought the beast (Nextel) for 
several years before it finally killed the 2-way radio industry.  I 
was somewhat fortunate because we did predominately Public Safety and 
Government accounts.  We were the ones to get up at 2AM on a Sunday to 
fix a base station while all the 2-way shops that were doing 9-5 
business customers were home sleeping.  When nextel killed 2-way 
dispatch all the other radio shops decided to start fixing Public 
safety and Govt customer equip.  The labor rate went from $100 per 
hour to $40 per hour just so guys could survive. Many went out of 
business. Am I upset???  Sure.  Did I plan for my future??  Sure.  We 
turned on big time to microwave 12 years ago when most of you didn't 
even know about it. As such we have avoided the dreaded Nextel 
monster. Am I going to be able to do what I am doing forever???  Of 
course not.  I am already planning my next transition.


If most of you guys think you are going to be WISP's 10+ years from 
now I think you need to re-examine your business plan


I am sure that many will be unhappy with this rant but I think it 
needs to be real food for thought.  If I was in business and i needed 
100 Mb FD of throughput between locations I'll be damned if I am going 
to spend extra money for equipment so I don't interfere with someone 
else in the future.


PLEASE NOTE*I AM NOT ENDORSING INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE BY 
ANYONE.  So please don't say I am


Good luck!

-B-




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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-12 Thread Marlon K. Schafer

I thought that they did.  How much do they use?

- Original Message - 
From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:49 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options




It doesn't use the entire band...




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


NOo

NO one should buy ANY radio anymore that uses the entire band and is 
always on.  No more WMux fiascos needed.


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




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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-12 Thread Bob Moldashel

http://www.exaltcom.com/


BTW:  What kind of truck do you have   :-P





Marlon K. Schafer wrote:


I thought that they did.  How much do they use?

- Original Message - From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:49 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options




It doesn't use the entire band...




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


NOo

NO one should buy ANY radio anymore that uses the entire band and is 
always on.  No more WMux fiascos needed.


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

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




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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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





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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-12 Thread Marlon K. Schafer

Oh, you are gonna love this!

My truck is a '96 green Taurus wagon!  Lots of room with all the seats 
folded down.  It's easy to get the ladder on and off of.  Gets almost 20 mpg 
even with the ladder on top.  But oil pans are $500 a whack and I've got too 
many sites up in the sticks now so I need to get something different.  That 
and the 240,000 miles on this one.  LOL, all highway miles, I've only put 
ONE set of brakes on it!


I also have an old Dodge Ram 50 pickup.  Pickups don't work well for this 
stuff here though.  Too hard to get to the front of the bed, things get 
rained on, stuff gets too hot in the summer and too cold in the winter.  A 
van is really tall but still has low ground clearance, AND it wastes an 
amazing amount of vertical space.


I think my next one will be a Durango or something around that size though. 
I need the ground clearance too often.


My WIFE drives the 454cid 3/4 ton suburban!  Nothing like 8000 lbs of metal 
to keep my family safe on the roads.  grin  But she usually only drives 5 to 
7 miles per day so it's not as bad as you might think.  I still use far more 
gas than she does.  But I'll tell you what, when it's time to pull mom and 
dad's 28' house boat I've got the rig for it.  And when the weather really 
sucks a guy can chain up all 4 corners of the suburban and walk through all 
but the worst.  Next I'm gonna see if I can manage to find a snow plow for 
it.


BUT, when I drive it I don't use up both lanes!  Heck, it'll even fit (if I 
work at it :-) in a standard parking place!


laters,
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 7:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options



http://www.exaltcom.com/


BTW:  What kind of truck do you have   :-P





Marlon K. Schafer wrote:


I thought that they did.  How much do they use?

- Original Message - From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:49 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul optio




It doesn't use the entire band...




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


NOo

NO one should buy ANY radio anymore that uses the entire band and is 
always on.  No more WMux fiascos needed.


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

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




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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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





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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-12 Thread Travis Johnson

Bob,

I tried to downsize last year, but the Toyota Prius I bought just 
couldn't pull the 27ft enclosed snowmobile trailer with snowmobiles 
inside... so I went back to a Chevy with a 6.0L and 4x4. It gets 8mpg 
while towing... but the batteries don't overheat. :)


Travis
Microserv

Bob Moldashel wrote:
BTW::  While we are talking responsibility and efficiency how many of 
you guys and gals drive SUV's, Pick-Up trucks, Vans and other 8 
cylinder vehicles  Put your hands up.  You know who you are..


:-)

-B-


Bob Moldashel wrote:


OK...Lets have a review..

It does not use the whole band.

It has GPS sync so you can use multiple links on the same channel.  
That makes it efficient...


It works for the application..

There is a big difference of opinion here regarding spectrum usage.  
My way of seeing it is as follows.


1.  I always install links with the largest possible antennas to keep 
my beamwidth as narrow as possible regardless of distance.  In NYC I 
consistently use 2' antennas for links one mile or less.


2. We use only the power we need to do the job.  Many of our links 
are running 0-5 dB of output at the radio.


3. We always mount antennas using rooftop structures or adjacent 
buildings to shield us from others.


4.  Interference happens.  We have not had any interference with FD 
constant carrier radios.  Period.


Another position is why should several users be allowed to use 
equipment that eats up the band passing say a simple video stream and 
such??  How is that efficient  They are eating channels running 
a couple of megs.I'm eating it running 100 Mb FD.  How about the 
WISP's that are using 120* sector antennas and throwing RF all over 
the place every time one of his 3 subscribers decides to use their 
system??  How is that spectrum efficency???  Or the guy that uses an 
omni and the 1 watt amp???
I can go on and on.  The spectrum is limited.  That sucks.  But 
business is business and it is important to do what is necessary to 
provide for your business at the most cost effective manner 
possible.  Is WalMart going to be considerate of you if you have a 
little 5  10 store on the next block???   Of course not.  And why??? 
Because they are serving the masses at a price that the masses want 
and that is what it takes to serve the masses.  Will some of the 510 
operators go out of business because they can't compete??  Sure they 
will.  Its called competition. And that is just what Matt is doing.  
If he has the demand then he needs to do what is necessary.  If his 
business model does not allow him to purchase expensive licensed 
equipment over cheaper unlicensed equipment then so be it.  That's 
business.


I came from the 2 way radio industry.  I fought the beast (Nextel) 
for several years before it finally killed the 2-way radio industry.  
I was somewhat fortunate because we did predominately Public Safety 
and Government accounts.  We were the ones to get up at 2AM on a 
Sunday to fix a base station while all the 2-way shops that were 
doing 9-5 business customers were home sleeping.  When nextel killed 
2-way dispatch all the other radio shops decided to start fixing 
Public safety and Govt customer equip.  The labor rate went from $100 
per hour to $40 per hour just so guys could survive. Many went out of 
business. Am I upset???  Sure.  Did I plan for my future??  Sure.  We 
turned on big time to microwave 12 years ago when most of you didn't 
even know about it. As such we have avoided the dreaded Nextel 
monster. Am I going to be able to do what I am doing forever???  Of 
course not.  I am already planning my next transition.


If most of you guys think you are going to be WISP's 10+ years from 
now I think you need to re-examine your business plan


I am sure that many will be unhappy with this rant but I think it 
needs to be real food for thought.  If I was in business and i needed 
100 Mb FD of throughput between locations I'll be damned if I am 
going to spend extra money for equipment so I don't interfere with 
someone else in the future.


PLEASE NOTE*I AM NOT ENDORSING INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE BY 
ANYONE.  So please don't say I am


Good luck!

-B-





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

2006-12-12 Thread Brad Belton
20mpg?  Big deal, I get pretty dang close to that (17-18mpg city) with my
foot the in floorboard of my Excursion.  This is my second Excursion...it is
fast approaching 150k miles and running strong as new.  Too bad Ford killed
it.

Of course it has the diesel with a few minor modifications...grin

Best,


Brad


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:06 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options

Oh, you are gonna love this!

My truck is a '96 green Taurus wagon!  Lots of room with all the seats 
folded down.  It's easy to get the ladder on and off of.  Gets almost 20 mpg

even with the ladder on top.  But oil pans are $500 a whack and I've got too

many sites up in the sticks now so I need to get something different.  That 
and the 240,000 miles on this one.  LOL, all highway miles, I've only put 
ONE set of brakes on it!

I also have an old Dodge Ram 50 pickup.  Pickups don't work well for this 
stuff here though.  Too hard to get to the front of the bed, things get 
rained on, stuff gets too hot in the summer and too cold in the winter.  A 
van is really tall but still has low ground clearance, AND it wastes an 
amazing amount of vertical space.

I think my next one will be a Durango or something around that size though. 
I need the ground clearance too often.

My WIFE drives the 454cid 3/4 ton suburban!  Nothing like 8000 lbs of metal 
to keep my family safe on the roads.  grin  But she usually only drives 5 to

7 miles per day so it's not as bad as you might think.  I still use far more

gas than she does.  But I'll tell you what, when it's time to pull mom and 
dad's 28' house boat I've got the rig for it.  And when the weather really 
sucks a guy can chain up all 4 corners of the suburban and walk through all 
but the worst.  Next I'm gonna see if I can manage to find a snow plow for 
it.

BUT, when I drive it I don't use up both lanes!  Heck, it'll even fit (if I 
work at it :-) in a standard parking place!

laters,
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 7:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options


 http://www.exaltcom.com/


 BTW:  What kind of truck do you have   :-P





 Marlon K. Schafer wrote:

 I thought that they did.  How much do they use?

 - Original Message - From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:49 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul optio



 It doesn't use the entire band...




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

 NOo

 NO one should buy ANY radio anymore that uses the entire band and is 
 always on.  No more WMux fiascos needed.

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



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

 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



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

 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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