So does anyone out there use the Alvarion VL and willing to give real pricing and feature set? I am interested in how it stacks up for a BH solution.

Anthony Will
Broadband Crop.

Travis Johnson wrote:
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/

Reply via email to