Jon,
I agree with this last post, and give credit where credit is due from that
perspective.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Langeler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 10:07 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL Fixes Problems with Backhaul Links
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: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.8/455 - Release Date: 9/22/2006
--
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
