This is another excellent comment from our President, thanks John. We can all use this information.
220 S. Jackson Dt.
Addison, MI 49220
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2006 06:36 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] wireless fiber deployment
>Licensed 70 to 80 GHz actually has less oxygen absorption of the signal
>than 60 GHz (by several orders of magnitude). If you are providing a
>Service Level Agreement with 5 - 9's or better % uptime then you should
>stick with a licensed product IMO. As Matt states below, both companies
>offer a licensed product. Depending on the rainfall annually where you
>are deploying you may get nearly the same uptime in 60 GHz, especially
>since it is just 0.4 miles. I would research before making a choice
>though if uptime requirements are strict.
>Remember to make sure you research your connection into the network
>also. Your point of demarcation will need to be identified. In many
>cases it is a port from the switch that you would provide. Make sure you
>select a switch compatible with the radio product you launch. If they
>provide the switch demarc point then make sure it is on the list of
>tested and known good hardware for connecting to the link you setup.
>Before quoting the product make sure you remember things like back-up
>power, downlead selection, surge and lightning suppression, stand-by
>spare radios for replacement, etc. Ask to see the software management
>interfaces for the radios being considered. If you buy radios that work
>but you cannot diagnose what is wrong when they break then you have a
>problem. It is not like you will have a 60 to 90 GHz signal meter or
>spectrum analyzer anytime soon so the software management interface is
>very important. If you do not address these things now then you will be
>If I were you I would at least get a quote or two from fiber
>construction companies to see if a fiber could be built for same or less
>money. Depending on the location this might be the more efficient solution.
>That is the biggest beef I have with the millimeter-wave crowd right
>now. They try to think in terms of how much money they can squeeze out
>for each single link sale instead of looking at the mass potential if we
>could all get our hands on low-cost Gigabit backhaul to all of our
>towers. Ken and I have been beating this into their brains now for a
>couple of years. It will sink in someday when they think it is their
>idea. :-) jk
>Matt Liotta wrote:
>> We deploy BrideWave gear and have been happy with it. BridgeWave also
>> has a licensed radio operating in the 80Ghz range.
>> Mario Pommier wrote:
>>> This is a new area of wireless deployment for me:
>>> I've been asked to quote for a gigabit wireless link between a
>>> radiology department and a nearby hospital (0.4 miles).
>>> I'm aware of two options so far, and here's some info I've gathered:
>>> -- BridgeWave - 60Ghz; unlicensed; $25,000 complete link; ~$6,000
>>> 5-year hardware warranty; 1Gbps
>>> -- GigaBeam - 70/80Ghz; licensed; $37,000 complete link (includes
>>> $1,000 10-year license); $0.00 5-year hardware warranty; 2.7Gbps
>>> release by Dec. 2006.
>>> I know Bob Moldashel said he has installed the Bridgewave.
>>> Anyone care to comment on any experience you've had with these
>>> Thanks a lot.
>WISPA Wireless List: firstname.lastname@example.org
-- WISPA Wireless List: email@example.com Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless