Tom, I have nothing to gain or lose by telling you what we've not only
extensivley tested but also experienced over 6 years. We started using
canopy since it began shipping and at least 100 trango SU between 3
different towers since beta. I just hate to see fellow wisp protest that
there isn't a good product and struggle when their actually is a pretty
darn good one...and on top of that has an upgrade path in it's vision,
it keeps getting better.
ARQ does not affect C/I like FEC does for example. When you say ARQ is
fixing any resiliance problems that may be true. But you'll also suffer
from increased latency and less throughput during those retransmissions.
Not good if you want to support VOIP and keep customers happy. Having a
low C/I means the system will be stable more often and maintain a lower
retrans. Trango's ARQ is not even an option in the 5800 model which is
what you and I probably have a decent percentage of in our Trango
networks. Having a low C/I requirement affects other things like
increases the range of a product. I'm laying out facts, you can convince
yourself of whatever you want...
Jon Langeler
Michwave Tech.
Tom DeReggi wrote:
Nice try, but I've found that comment to be not at all true. I have
often chosen to avoid canopy user's channels, but because I am a good
WISP neighbor, not because I had to. Why fight if you can cooperate.
On a SPEC sheet Canopy does boast the lowest C/I. But Trango's
specified C/I was reported before considering ARQ. And Trango has
always underspec'd their spec sheets. C/I is not nearly as relevant
as SNR resilience anyway. With Arq, we've easilly ran links as low as
4 db above the average noise floor, reliably. There is VERY little
difference between the Trango and Canopy C/I in real world usage. The
Trango just adds more polarities as more options to work around it,
when needed. One of the reasons we like Trango is its resilience to
noise, that gives us the abilty to fight it out and stand our ground.
The Foxes w/ DISH, have excellent ARQ and resilience to Noise, within
their range and LOS.
When we start to have trouble with Trango, is when we start to push
the limits of the technology. Its a LOS technology that we attempt
NLOS with. My arguement is also not that we can't be the last man
standing. Its that when the battle happens the customer sees it, and
the customer does not tolerate it. IF a Canopy and Trango went to
war, one might survive a little better than the other, but ultimately
both customers would feel the interference the majority of the time.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
