Matt,

We've been through this debate a number of times comparing PTP models to PtMP models, and which is better. I am in no way saying PtP models are not good, just different things to consider, neither better.
The acceptabilty of PtMP model has nothing to do with ARPU of subscriber.
I can support $800 ARPU customers off of PtMP model with no problem at all.
Viabilty of PTMP model has to do with how fast rate of growth will happen.

It has taken us a long time to fill up the capacity of our PtMP network.
And because our coverage range is so large, (30 cell sites), our custoemrs come in from all over the place, not necessarilly saturating the capacity of a single cell site or sector. We find that sales always takes longer than people think, so PtMP often has plenty of capacity. Why pay roof rights on antennas, that are under used?

A business model can be made to jsutify PtP links, no doubt. But jsut because you can get top ARPU from customers and justify the expendatures, is no reason to pay more cost than you need to. Maximum profit is made from increasing revenue and REDUCING COSTS, regardless of wether you need to. PtMP REDUCES cost in early stages.

Remember a PTMP system can always be upgraded by adding PTP links later to expand capacity, and migrate to a PTP model when needed.

The decission to go PTP should be made because of the long term labor savings, because you did everything from the beginning optimally to reduce future rebuilding. Or for interference link quality reasons.

I personally do not care about the labor. I got good engineers at $15 an hour to do the upgrades. I figure by the time I need the faster dedicated PTP links the technology will be better cheaper and different. Others that use contractors at hefty labor costs, would care more about long term labor saving, and preventing replication of work. The biggest differenciator is wether you ahve high roof right fees to pay. If you are not paying much for roof rights, there is little harm in spending the money for additional antennas.

I think once a provider as learned a proven growth rate (speed) of what they can accomplish, and have a record of their average costs (roof rights) they can make the decission of wether a PtMP or PTP model is best.

It also depends on the assets of the provider. Eventually for ALL companies credit limits could potentially get exceeded iftheir growth rate was fast enough. Unless the provider is a billionaire. Very few people lease on future revenue, business plans, and credit alone (with fair terms). Almost all require assets to secure the lease amount other than the radio value. 100 radios at $10,000 each (say Redline PTP) is a million dollars. PTP can get out of hand quick if someone does serious scale quickly.

As a matter of fact, stating PTP helps a provider reach a cash flow positive state and healthy books, to speed up a companies abilty to get financing for PTP expansion.

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, June 20, 2006 7:59 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K


All of your comments are from your perspective using your low ARPU business model. When your ARPU easily exceeds $500 spending $2K on radios doesn't seem expensive. Especially in light of the fact that Canopy and Trango PtMP systems would run out of bandwidth too quick for our business model. Newer modulation schemes for PtMP systems could completely change our point-of-view though.

-Matt

On Jun 19, 2006, at 7:09 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:

Matt brings out a good point that shows the benefit of PTPs and Syncing feature of Canopy.
I don't deny these advantages, and they can be beneficial in many  cases.
However, don't forget that your equipment costs go up at more than double per new customer compared to PtMP deployments where each new customer is jsut a CPE.

PtP model, each new customer is 2 grand. (canopy)
PtMP model, First customer is $1500. (Trango)
PtMP model, each new customer is $500. (Trango)

And this is BEFORE you consider roof right fees. I'd rather pay $200 per month for 1 AP antenna than 5 AP/PTP end point antennas.

One of the biggest advantages of Wireless si the abilty to oversubscribe and resell unused capacity. Few people use their capacity.
PTP deployments prevent that.

There are arguements that in the long run, the PTP could be preferred for avoiding remote interference, or higher capacity for the end game. But from a startup and profit point of view the PtMP method offers a clear advantage, and reduces risk and/or long term liabilty if leasing.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K


You don't need connectorized backhauls. The sync functionality alone allows you to densely colocate backhauls. We've had as many as 5 Canopy backhauls mounted within feet of each other all operating on the same channel.

-Matt

On Jun 16, 2006, at 1:04 PM, Jon Langeler wrote:

It's theoretically possible to engineer up to 8 equally seperated connectorized Canopy backhauls on a tower using alternating polarizations and just one channel. Let's just say this is not something you'll find in the Canopy manual :-)
Jon Langeler
Michwave Tech.

Travis Johnson wrote:

Matt,

How do you fit more than 10-12 of those type of dedicated links on a single tower?

Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

We rarely use multi-point systems for customers and when we do they are either small businesses with very little voice and data needs or they are just data customers. All of our customers with any significant amount of voice are running on dedicated radios. I would say our average customer buys 12 lines of voice and delivering that over a Canopy backhaul works just fine.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:

So you agree then that being able to do VoIP is key. I'd like to hear more about your experiences with VoIP. Is your solution actually doing it well or is that your idea of doing VoIP well is 8 only concurrent calls per sector so long as the quality is decent for those few calls? We have talked to many very users of other common 5GHz brands these past few week and we have been consistently told that performance is just dandy until you bump up against 8 calls. That is a less than 50 call per cell limit, which does not seem like enough to justify the investments needed on the NOC end for the softswitch.
How do you define good VoIP performance Matt?

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:47 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Patrick Leary wrote:


Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing layer 2



transort

for carriers.




We have multiple CLECs and non-CLECs buying layer 2 transport from us now. All are used to buy alternative access from fiber providers and therefore fixed wireless was a naturally next step. Further, almost all indicated they would have done it sooner, but the fixed wireless companies they approached weren't willing to offer them layer 2 transport.


How about VoIP? How many of you consider VoIP to be an
important part of your service future as a WISP? If so, how do you plan to support since it cannot be done decently with the other popular 5GHz solutions. That's not my opinion so much as the opinion of many larger
Trango and Motorola WISPs I have been talking to lately.






We are doing a significant amount of VoIP now. We have VoIP customers running on top of both Trango and Canopy radios. Canopy is a significantly better solution for VoIP since we can properly prioritize voice with Canopy, while we cannot with Trango. We also wholesale VoIP to other operators and help them --if they require it-- with getting their network ready to support VoIP.


If a key goal of WISPs is growing ARPU, what are WISPs plans for doing that
with whatever your current technology permits?






I believe VoIP is the number one way to grow ARPU and the fact that we bundle VoIP is why I believe we have one of the highest ARPUs in the industry.

-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/

--
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