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


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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Of Tom DeReggi
> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 1:47 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
> 
> Travis does bring up an important issue regarding uptime.
> 
> It has been proven that Wireless can be a reliable technology, the flaw is
> not the RF.
> Expecially PtP links engineered between two points on an ISPs network,
> controlled by an ISP.
> The problem however come in on the other side of the link. Can we control
> the factors on the customer side, that can effect reliabilty? And is it cost
> effective to do so?
> 
> Some examples:
> 1. A landscaper cut the CAT5 cable on the side of the house.
> 2. Poor electrical causes frequent radio lockup or Linksys's to loose
> configs.
> 3. A cleaning crew, unplugs routers in MTU building electrical closet, so
> they can plug in their vacume.
> 4. A customer gets a Virus, and sends traffic patterns that manages to force
> lockups on AP regularly.
> 5. A roofer desides to setup a temp work center in front of our rooftop SU
> dish antenna. Packet loss every 3 minutes, when goes to grab another bunch
> of shingles or what ever.
> 
> Many of these problems are less prone to happen with T1 lines, but it has
> nothing to do with technology, it has to do with deployment trends and
> characteristics.  As a result, in some cases, short outages could occur more
> frequently. Thats why its so important that WISPs continue to push the many
> other valuable positives of Wireless that the technology uniquely gives,
> making it all worth it.
> 
> 
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 9:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
> 
> 
> > Matt,
> >
> > Now you are comparing $150,000 point to point licensed microwave links
> > with $150 CPE point to multi-point links?
> >
> > Travis
> > Microserv
> >
> > Matt Liotta wrote:
> >
> >> We haven't been in business for 3 years, but yes we have wireless links
> >> that have 100% uptime. How many years did this entire country depend on
> >> wireless links for long distance prior to fiber optics? The M in MCI
> >> isn't microwave for no reason.
> >>
> >> -Matt
> >>
> >> Travis Johnson wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I have point to point T1 lines from Qwest that have been up 100% for the
> >>> last 3 years. That's 100.0% uptime. Do you have any wireless links that
> >>> have that type of reliability?
> >>>
> >>> I am probably one of the largest WISP operators on this and any wireless
> >>> list. I built our entire wireless backbone from the ground up starting
> >>> in 1997. I spent 3 hours on a tower this morning installing two new
> >>> AP's. I understand where wireless fits and where it doesn't.
> >>>
> >>> Travis
> >>> Microserv
> >>>
> >>> Matt Liotta wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I'll take a wireless link over a T1 any day if for no other reason then
> >>>> the wireless link will be more reliable. You're never going to suffer
> >>>> the loss of a link due to a backhoe or a drunk driver hitting a pole,
> >>>> which are the two most likely reasons for a T1 failure.
> >>>>
> >>>> Personally, I believe that fixed wireless is truly better and I would
> >>>> argue someone has no business working for a fixed wireless company if
> >>>> they don't believe it too.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Matt
> >>>>
> >>>> Travis Johnson wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Tom,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The original postition and question was "are you comparing your
> >>>>> wireless service to telco T1". After your posts, it's obvious that you
> >>>>> are... and I would argue that a land-based line will ALWAYS be better
> >>>>> than wireless, with all other factors being the same. Now, if you are
> >>>>> able to save the customer $xx per month by using wireless, then there
> >>>>> is an advantage. If you can provide other services, then there is an
> >>>>> advantage. However, comparing a half-duplex system to a full-duplex
> >>>>> system and saying they are the same is... not correct.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you had the choice between running a full-duplex wireless system
> >>>>> and half-duplex, which would you do? :)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you could purchase a land-based connection to go from point A to
> >>>>> point B for $500 per month, or rent roof-top space at point A and
> >>>>> point B for $500 per month, which would you choose? ;)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Travis
> >>>>> Microserv
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Tom DeReggi wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Travis,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'd love to perform your test.
> >>>>>> Send me the CD.
> >>>>>> Understanding that I will provision the customer at 3 mbps on our
> >>>>>> first hop router, using Trango 10mbps PtMP radio link, and that your
> >>>>>> CD test will generate 1500mbps of data transfer.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There are three seperate issues here. 1) One user's connection able
> >>>>>> to effect another user's connection, and 2) On one particular link,
> >>>>>> their upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under normal
> >>>>>> opperation within acceptable use policy, and 3) On one particular
> >>>>>> link, their upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under a
> >>>>>> Denial of Service situation.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> With any type of broadband, if the capacity of a link is saturated,
> >>>>>> it results in packet loss and performance loss for the individual's
> >>>>>> connection. Its up to the end user to protect against violation of
> >>>>>> acceptable use policy like viruses that deliver abnormal PPS, or any
> >>>>>> queueing needed to allow fair priority of data type on the LAN side
> >>>>>> of the link. These problems can also all be solved with a feature
> >>>>>> rich client side router before plugging to our Broadband, regardless
> >>>>>> of the Duplex of our link.  In other words, The same performance
> >>>>>> problems will result on a full Duplex link, if one direction gets
> >>>>>> saturated, and that same direction traffic will result in packet
> >>>>>> loss, and all communication generally requires some communication in
> >>>>>> each of the direction for traffic to flow in one direction.  So where
> >>>>>> the problem may be worse with Half Duplex, the problem still exists
> >>>>>> in some capacity with Full Duplex. I'd argue that its possible to
> >>>>>> generate enough pps on a Full Duplex Link in one direction, that will
> >>>>>> overload the processing power of the radio CPU, and the other
> >>>>>> direction still getting horrible performance even with no traffic
> >>>>>> passing in that other direction even though Full Duplex, because no
> >>>>>> CPU time is available for it. Unless each direction has its own CPU,
> >>>>>> which is not likely.  This is an issue of whether the radio used can
> >>>>>> handle the number of PPS sent to it in high DOS situations.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'd also argue under this situation 4000 pps 1500 mbps, that the
> >>>>>> customer's use of the circuit in any capacity when a DOS of that type
> >>>>>> was happening, would be not possible, and justify immediate tech
> >>>>>> action to resolve, regardless of whether one direction of traffic was
> >>>>>> usable.  I;ve never met a company where having one direction traffic
> >>>>>> only was acceptable or tolerable.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You did however hit on an important clarification. A half duplex link
> >>>>>> can not distinguish on its own wether upload or download traffic at a
> >>>>>> given moment is priority or more important to the subscriber. When
> >>>>>> there is a large demand for legitimate broadband, why would the data
> >>>>>> in one direction be any more priority than the other, when capacity
> >>>>>> is reached? Either way the customer is compromised in throughout
> >>>>>> needs one direction or another. Doesn't it really mean that the
> >>>>>> customer needs more total bandwidth? Is it any more important that
> >>>>>> mail was sent and not received?  Full Duplex is one way for a
> >>>>>> customer to solve that problem, and reserve bandwdith in one
> >>>>>> direction. But does that really solve the problem? Maybe if the
> >>>>>> circuit's intended use is for 100% VOIP a symetrical application.
> >>>>>> But not many circuits are used for that purpose.  And if I really
> >>>>>> wanted to, I can set my bandwdith management to be seperate for
> >>>>>> upload and download, and immulate a Full Duplex connection, over the
> >>>>>> half duplex link. But what it really says to me is the importance
> >>>>>> that customers have front end queuing / IP prioritization when using
> >>>>>> bi-directional sensitive applications such as VOIP.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Tom DeReggi
> >>>>>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> >>>>>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>>>> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
> >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 4:45 PM
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If someone wants to setup whatever wireless network they would like
> >>>>>>> to test and then let me know, I'll gladly send you a CD you can pop
> >>>>>>> in a laptop and connect at the CPE side. It will dish out 4,000pps
> >>>>>>> and 1.5Mbps of upload traffic. Then you can go ahead and try and
> >>>>>>> download something at the same time across that same link using the
> >>>>>>> same CPE connection.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If it were a telco-T1, the download would not even notice the
> >>>>>>> upload. Wireless, being a half-duplex medium, does not compare to a
> >>>>>>> full-duplex line. Licensed and true microwave systems are a
> >>>>>>> different story.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Travis
> >>>>>>> Microserv
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Tom DeReggi wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Travis,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> We do not see that on our network.
> >>>>>>>> One provider's usage rarely has an effect on the others, that can
> >>>>>>>> be significantly noticed.
> >>>>>>>> When bandwidth management is done at the first hop at every cell
> >>>>>>>> site, this does not happen.
> >>>>>>>> I'm referring to using Trango 5830s.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You are however bringing up the difference between time syncronized
> >>>>>>>> circuit based apposed to Ethernet products.
> >>>>>>>> With Ethernet, there is always a scale up and scale down of speed,
> >>>>>>>> based on the TCP protocol when limits are reached, but this has
> >>>>>>>> nothing to do with half or full duplex. The same degregation using
> >>>>>>>> Ethernet applies to traffic going in the same direction.
> >>>>>>>> For Ethernet to be a viable repalcement for T1, it must be of
> >>>>>>>> greater capacity.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The second thing, distinguishing the difference between T1 and DSL
> >>>>>>>> classe, and which Wireless compares to, is more than just Speed and
> >>>>>>>> Duplex.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> SLAs,  Repair Time, Network support, Peak Speed, etc.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> the idea is that unused bandwdith can never be gone back to regain
> >>>>>>>> use of. So offering 3 mbps speed allows network usage to be
> >>>>>>>> delivered sooner, so bandwidth is free for upcomming traffic,
> >>>>>>>> therefore making more traffic available for that upcomming need.
> >>>>>>>> Higher capacity allows more efficient use of the bandwdith.  So we
> >>>>>>>> find that our customers tend to recognize a perception of much
> >>>>>>>> better speed on our wireless links than our T1 links, because they
> >>>>>>>> have fewer congestion times.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The secret is for the bandwdith management to be provided equally
> >>>>>>>> on a PRIORITY basis.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Tom DeReggi
> >>>>>>>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> >>>>>>>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL 
> >>>>>>>> PROTECTED]>
> >>>>>>>> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
> >>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:12 PM
> >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Matt,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps
> >>>>>>>>> upload, it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic,
> >>>>>>>>> music sharing, worms, etc.). With a wireless connection, even at
> >>>>>>>>> 3.0Mbps, a 1.5Mbps upload will bring it almost to a stop.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Travis
> >>>>>>>>> Microserv
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Matt Liotta wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is equivalent
> >>>>>>>>>> to 1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD radios can have
> >>>>>>>>>> dynamic time division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex link superior
> >>>>>>>>>> IMHO.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> -Matt
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Travis Johnson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Tom,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1
> >>>>>>>>>>> telco service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Travis
> >>>>>>>>>>> Microserv
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Tom DeReggi wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Chris,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with your finding.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or
> >>>>>>>>>>>> what was the finding?)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> For example, its not only important to determine what terms the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what
> >>>>>>>>>>>> meaning they have for those terms that they identify with.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that "High Speed
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Internet" was the term that the consumer best identified with.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> However, most people identify "High Speed Internet" as much
> >>>>>>>>>>>> with DialUP service as they do with "Broadband".
> >>>>>>>>>>>> And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL
> >>>>>>>>>>>> or Cable services.  Why do we want to create the image of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> offering commodity services, design for huge over subscription,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> low repair SLAs, and best effort?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as
> >>>>>>>>>>>> setting standards for quality?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> We don't want to be identified as that.  We want to be
> >>>>>>>>>>>> something better.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi
> >>>>>>>>>>>> services to your clients, and you are striving to be a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> competitor to Cable and DSL quality, sure Brand the product as
> >>>>>>>>>>>> DSL, and its a good thing. And please do so, so your wireless
> >>>>>>>>>>>> is not identified with what we offer, branding high quality
> >>>>>>>>>>>> fiber extension and T1 replacement services.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> In your focus group did you get any results on their perception
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of quality that they associated with Cable and DSL or the term
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "High Speed Internet"?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Would you suggest branding your T1 or Fiber offerings as "High
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Speed Internet", since customers best identify with that term?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should be branding our service as "Wi-Fiber". or Maybe
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Ethernet Internet Access"  (of course like end users will know
> >>>>>>>>>>>> what Ethernet means.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Its a tough call because if we called our service "Fiber" or
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "T1" we'd most likely be liars based on their true definitions.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing exists realting to quality for us to piggy back on.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> All though "Broadband" may not be as well recognized, its
> >>>>>>>>>>>> doesn;t associate us with Telcos or Cable companies
> >>>>>>>>>>>> necessarilly.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Broadband is truthfully defined as a general term to cover any
> >>>>>>>>>>>> media type of delivery of Internet Access.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Tom DeReggi
> >>>>>>>>>>>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> >>>>>>>>>>>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "chris cooper"
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:34 AM
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We conducted a few focus groups here.  Most of the attendees
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> were in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 18-24 yr. age bracket.  It was amazing how many didn't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> identify with the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> word broadband.  The words they responded to best were 'high
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> speed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> internet"  Wireless was way down the list.  Too much confusion
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> cellular.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, I think wireless will hold its own as a marketing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> term
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> eventually.  Wireless is the sexy new darling of the world. It
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> will be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> worth trading on the word eventually.  The other part of this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> is that we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> are building brands as wireless providers, so it makes sense
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to keep
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> that in the mix until the world catches up.  In 95-96 I was
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> out trying
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to sell people on the words internet, email and website.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Those words
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't register then but they are now a permanent part of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> American
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> lexicon and in the American brain.  The word wireless and what
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> represents will eventually do the same.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> chris
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:13 AM
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> To: WISPA General List
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Agreed excellent point (wireless scares and confuses people),
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> except....
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why associate your service with DSL, a low grade $39 a month
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> service, as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> advertized by Verizon?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not associate it with T1 or just Broadband, higher quality
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> services?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you associate it with DSL, then your are also associating
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> it with the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> same quality and price. They think you are ripping them off
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> charging
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> $150 a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> month when they can get it for $39 a month down the street.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> When in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> accuality you are saving them 70% off their T1 line.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me share a case that happened just yesterday.  I got a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> call for DSL,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> they currently had voip and data on a T1, and they were
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> looking for a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> DSL
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> line to transfer the Internet Data to, to free up bandwidth on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> their T1
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> their VOIP.  It was a 15 minute close over the phone, since we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> had the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> MTU
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> building lit, and represented we could have their new circuit
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> installed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> following day. I represented we were selling broadband, a T1
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> replacement. I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> made the mistake of leavingthe labeling of the contract
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> heading as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Wireless
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Broadband Agreement". The customer saw Wireless and didn;t
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> sign, and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> asked
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to cancel order. I'm now likely going to win the client back,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> after most
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> yesterday on the phone answering questions from everyone under
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the sun.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> problem was the customers computer consultant, had used
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Wireless in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Texas,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and had nothing but troubles. He stated tons of Lightning
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> related
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> electrical
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> problem that disrupted service regularly. (It was a Wifi
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> service he was
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> using, there.) The question they asked me was, why is my
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> service able to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> compare againt T1 apposed to DSL, to justify the higher price?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> They
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> looked
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> at it as a lower grade service.  My solution however, was a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> high end
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> service. It was an Engineered 30 mbps TDD 4 mile link with a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Direct path
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> from the building to my core fiber peering point. I even have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> fiber in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> building at $500, but don't use it, because the fiber has 4-5
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> hops to my
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> transit location compared to my wireless that is a direct shot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> bypasses
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> many points of failure. I'll probably still get the business
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> but after
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> much
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> sales agrevation and providing a good number of references.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So its a valid point that Wireless does still scare some
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> people. And
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Poor
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> quality Wireless providers ruin the rep for the good quality
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> WISPs. But
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> my
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> bigger point is that some customers actually think DSL is more
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> reliable
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> than
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> an engineered wireless link used to replace Fiber and T1s.  So
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> branding
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Wireless as DSL, does not helpthe industry, it lowers the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> value of what
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> do.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been plaqued by this problem, as my company name is...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "RapidDSL".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> gets me the leads, but it also starts every sales call out
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> with why I'm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> charging more than $50 a month for my service, that I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> generally get
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> $150-$500 a month for.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We now market our service as "Broadband" period. It has made
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> all the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> difference. We don't lie about using wireless, its plastered
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> all over
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> our
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> website. But why advertise something that just confuses
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> costs
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone time to sort out.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom DeReggi
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rick Smith"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 8:55 AM
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> great point! :)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott Reed wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who says the L in  DSL must be Line?  Call it Digital
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subsciber Link
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it works for the customer and uses our normal language for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the radio
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connection.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott Reed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Owner
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NewWays
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wireless Networking
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Network Design, Installation and Administration
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.nwwnet.net <http://www.nwwnet.net/>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *---------- Original Message -----------*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Rick Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 00:39:48 -0400
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > We find we can NOT sell our service as "Wireless
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Broadband"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > As soon as we market it to customers as DSL or just plain
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > "High Speed Internet", we start scoring.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Too many in this area have been educated against "Open
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WIFI"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > being BAD...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > The cable we install to the radio is a "line", right ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > It carries digital signals, right ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > It allows our customer to become a "subscriber", right ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > DSL... ;)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > KyWiFi LLC wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >I'm noticing more and more WISP's selling their wireless
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >broadband service as "DSL" or "Wireless DSL". I know
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >that 75% of the people who call our sales number have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >a difficult time understanding what Wireless Broadband
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >They already know what DSL is and that is what the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> majority
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >of them ask for so I would be interested in hearing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >opinions on the pros and cons of a WISP labeling their
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >wireless broadband service as "DSL, wDSL or Wireless DSL"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >instead of "Fixed Wireless, WiFI or Wireless Broadband".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >If the masses are more familiar with the term DSL then I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >think we would generate more sales leads by advertising
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >our (WISPs') broadband as DSL instead of Wireless
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >Broadband. I'm sure the local telco would just love to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >all of us selling "DSL". Are there any legalities to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this? Does
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >wireless broadband qualify as DSL or a form of DSL in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >eyes of the law? Is it legal for a WISP to sell their
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wireless
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >broadband service as DSL?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >Sincerely,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >Shannon D. Denniston, Co-Founder
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >KyWiFi, LLC - Mt. Sterling, Kentucky
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >http://www.KyWiFi.com <http://www.kywifi.com/>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >http://www.KyWiFiVoice.com <http://www.kywifivoice.com/>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >Phone: 859.274.4033
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >A Broadband Phone & Internet Provider
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >==============================
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >Wireless Broadband, Local Calling and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >UNLIMITED Long Distance only $69!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >No Taxes, No Regulatory Fees, No Hassles
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >FREE Site Survey: http://www.KyWiFi.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.kywifi.com/>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >==============================
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *------- End of Original Message -------*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.2/280 - Release Date:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3/13/2006
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> >>>>>>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> >>>>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> > --
> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >
> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 
> --
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 
> 
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/303 - Release Date: 04/06/2006
> 

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Reply via email to