Matt and other megahertz counters,

No offense intended, just looking at it from their side.

My post to Bob is the real math. No one wants to believe it might not work when looking at the $ figures. It's easier for them to count money than megabits and spectral bandwidth. I'm not a city government contract person, but in my dealings with the federal government, I've seen a lot more money be wasted for much less in return.

Brian Whigham
Yonder Networks

Matt Liotta wrote:

Jack Unger wrote:

1. The attenuation between 2.4 GHz nodes is not enough to prevent each node from hearing multiple other nodes as noise (thus more packet retransmissions and more reduced throughtput). This requires understanding link budgets, signal-to-noise ratios, and receiver threshold specifications.

Luckily for us we happen to be a WISP that understands these issues. We have deployed several Tropos-based networks with sufficient attenuation between nodes.

2. Metricom is not a good comparison because:
a. They were frequency hoppers on 900 MHz.

Physics applies on all spectrum.

b. They promised low (128kbps and then 256kbps, if memory serves) throughput. This doesn't compare to today's expected throughput levels.

It was stated that the problems occurred for hams at 1200 baud.

c. They eventually went to a two-band node that backhauled on 2.4 GHz. so they could increase throughput.

Only in select areas; the vast majority of the network was single band.

d. Metricom then went out of business.

The network did work and it was profitable in a number of cities. The fact that there was a market bust or that company built more cities than they had cash flow to support isn't a technical concern.

Physics is still physics and companies need to but don't yet understand wireless physics. They need this understanding before bidding on muni projects and before they make these high-expectation, wireless-for-all, triple-play (voice, video, data) promises to public officials. Once a muni network is engineered incorrectly and deployed incorrectly, it may well take as much additional money to fix it (if it even can be fixed) as it took to deploy it in the first place.

Math is still math and companies need to but don't yet understand advanced mathematics. This generalization is just as accurate as your statement, but hopefully seems more absurd. Some companies understand wireless physics. Some of these same companies even deploy wireless networks that work. Some markets meet the correct criteria to have a muni Wi-Fi network that can be successful; some even exist today. How do any of these statements specify the success of muni Wi-Fi in general?


WISPA Wireless List:



Reply via email to