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" <[email protected]> > 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" <[email protected]> > >>>>>> 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" <[email protected]> > >>>>>>>> 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'" <[email protected]> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 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" <[email protected]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[email protected]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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: [email protected] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *------- End of Original Message -------* > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>>>> WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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: [email protected] > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >>>>>>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >>>>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >> > > -- > > WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] > > 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: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
