I have a very interesting new (this month) pdf about this topic that
compares Canopy Advantage and BreezeACCESS VL in a variety of ways, from
a coverage modeling example using high end propagation software to VoIP
stats using company documents from both companies. 

We think it makes a clear case for BreezeACCESS VL, far beyond the
simple front end cost discussions. 

It is 189k in size and would be great fodder for discussion here. If you
want a copy, e-mail me offlist.

Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 7:31 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] vendor specs

Hi,

I changed the subject line to reflect more the direction of this 
discussion (Trango vs. Canopy vs. Alvarion)... ;)

This is just off the top of my head, and I would love to see more data 
on any of these radios:

Trango 5830AP - $1,079 retail
Dual polarity
10Mbps (auto up/down ratio)
Easy management (CLI and web)
$149 CPE ($199 up to 10 miles)

Canopy 5.7 AP - $970 (Advantage $1,974)
C/I advantage
Fixed up/down ratio
$490 CPE ($737 advantage)

Alvarion VL AP - $4,500 (rough retail)
36Mbps and 40,000pps
$1,000 CPE

For whatever it's worth, we have over 2,500 CPE in the air and over 
2,000 are Trango (900mhz, 2.4ghz, 5.8ghz). The Trango product has worked

very well for us, and we are located on some mountaintop repeater 
locations that literally have over 100 antennas (paging, HAM, WISPs, 
etc.) within 100 yards of each other.

Our biggest problem is frequency availability at all (regardless of 
radio choice)... we have a 2.4ghz AP at a repeater station that is 
"full". We attempted to install a second sector today and ran a site 
survey at this location.... across the entire 2.4ghz band, the "average"

signals ranged from -25 to -55 at the best. :(

Travis
Microserv

Jon Langeler wrote:

> 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/



 
 
************************************************************************
************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals &
computer viruses(192).
************************************************************************
************






 
 
************************************************************************
************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals &
computer viruses(43).
************************************************************************
************








************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer 
viruses.
************************************************************************************



--
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