Hello Scriv, Sorry to bore you...certainly not our intent. You last attempt to end the thread was met with others posting not Brad or me.
Regardless, I agree we're done with it. Best, Brad -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 8:18 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs Brad and Brad. You guys are getting boring....saying the same drivel over and over. PLEASE either take your broken record off line or say something original. Scriv Brad Belton wrote: >Hello Brad, > >I think you are missing the point of the thread here. The point is to offer >up constructive criticism of the VL product and how end users feel it could >be improved upon. > >Are you saying adding a RSSI reading, adding dual polarity and adding dual >band ability would not further improve the VL product? I think you are >sorely mistaken. > >Certainly the VL product is working for thousands of end users. Where in >any of my posts do I claim it is not? However, clearly a product that >auto-rates itself down to a slower speed in the face of noise is not a >product that we can use to support committed rate clients. Sure, we can >fudge it for a short time and if the VL offered software polarity & software >band agility fix the problem fairly quickly. > >With the current VL product we are forced to truck roll to every client site >and rotate polarity or in the event of an internal SU have to replace it >with a horizontal solution. That simply isn't an option for us, but maybe >other operations find the truck rolls enjoyable...<grin> > >The operators given to me by Alvarion as references using VL clearly state >on their websites they are offering "up to" bandwidth packages. Not >committed rate packages as we do. This is not to disparage them in any >way...many of the references are many times larger than us and I applaud >their success, however our target market is different than theirs. > >I want to use the VL product as it can offer the additional capacity we >need, but without a few basic hardware features I don't see it as a fit for >us. Again, that's what discussion is for...I'm here to discuss improvements >I'd like to see in the VL product. What is wrong with that? > >Best, > > >Brad > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Brad Larson >Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 10:50 AM >To: 'WISPA General List' >Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs > >Brad Belton, Respectfully, there are 100's of wisp's proving you wrong. OFDM >in UL has its place and making blanket statements to the contrary makes >little sense. There is great debate in the industry of what value Dual >Polarity via software offers an OFDM UL system. There is also considerable >data on the fact that dual frequency solutions are not optimal. You keep >harping on these same two issues yet we have a substantial installed base >that grows by the day. There will never be a perfect solution for everyone >and I understand that VL may not be a fit for your current situation. > >BreezeAccess VL is a viable solution that is being heavily deployed and we >continue to replace "dual polarity via software and dual band 5.3/5.8 >solutions" with great results (and they speak for themselves). I think this >thread was started by one such replacement, an upgrade from Trango that got >the provider faster data rates, better support, etc. etc. They'll be many >more testimonials in the coming 12 months. Scriv said it best, "It's like >the difference between night and day. We have zero downtime on our backhaul >now. We were getting countless reports of downtime from our network >monitoring system before. Now it just works. I don't think I can overstate >the impact Alvarion VL has had on my network." Oh and lets not forget the >fact that Scriv is probably sleeping better at night without the outages he >used to have. > >Brad > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 11:30 AM >To: 'WISPA General List' >Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs > >Price is always a factor, but we would gladly pay a premium for VL with the >sorely needed HARDWARE improvements: > >(1) Dual Polarity via software >(2) Dual Band 5.3GHz and 5.8GHz > >These are time tested proven valuable HARDWARE features that VL is lacking. >With these features added to VL there would not be a comparable product on >the market other than "home-brew's" like StarOS & MikroTik. > >Without these HARDWARE improvements the VL product is too susceptible to >noise and therefore not a viable solution for committed rate business >offerings. > >Best, > > >Brad > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Brad Larson >Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 9:31 AM >To: 'WISPA General List' >Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs > >Gino, I have to admit Alvarion has some work to do for the smaller wisp's >out there. Patrick will have his hands full on this one. But for wisps >buying 100 packs on a bi or monthly plan the pricing below just doesn't seem >like such a deal breaker anymore when you add up the feature sets. For a few >more months on an ROI model you can buy Alvarion. > >The whole point of this thread has been the fact that many (including Scriv) >have found out "Trango still wins, because Trango is less expensive or >Canopy for that matter"..... may not exactly be the case. The ongoing costs >of truck rolls, tech support issues, and shorter coverage modeling can kill >an ROI model faster than the cost of cpe. > >Add in voip coverage modeling and the dynamics change once again. I have >seen several advanced studies of building data/voip wireless networks where >BreezeAccess VL used half the tower/base station sites (therefore less >leases and operational expenses), gave twice the throughput per cell site, >and can handle more than 10X's the amount of voip traffic. Throw in the >addition of maintaining twice the amount of gear and once again we come out >ahead. This was really driven home on a few backhauling for mesh projects >with drive testing of different technologies and the findings REALLY blew me >away. No kidding folks the differences are like night and day and you'll be >hearing about some of these networks this year. > >I first saw the differences several years ago where a project out for bid >was installing 2,500 cpe's in a seven square mile area with trees and >rolling hills. With a $125 premium on cpe the total network costs with >operational expenses was less expensive than a Canopy solution and we gave >100% coverage. Alvarion CPE installation was eave mount on 1 square mile >centers vs high rooftop with more towers needed (again saving the service >provider money). Brad > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 6:44 PM >To: 'WISPA General List' >Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs > >Trango Atlas CPE with dish $250? >Canopy with dish $275 > >Canopy Advantage Cluster: >6 Ap's @ $1500 each = $9k (you can start your pop with a fcc certified omni >unit for $2.7k and evolve to a full sector later) >CMM Micro for Power and Sync = $1.5k *optional >BAM - Prizm = $2k *optional > >The CMM Micro is optional component for GPS Sync, you can achieve sync among >the cluster with 10 ft of cat 5 and 6 rj11 connectors > >BAM - Prizm is a NMS for Management but is NOT a required component, you can >manage all your settings from the web interface on each unit including >bandwidth and such. I would only recommend the Prizm NMS for big WISP's >(200+ units ) > >About the Third Party: > >There are a couple on 3rd party improvements for canopy, almost all were >created on a cost savings stand point, Example: > >Motorola reflector dish for 10 mile + links $100 >Beehive Wireless reflector dish for 10 mile links $49.95 (fcc certified) > >Motorola CMM GPS Sync System $1.5k >PacketFLux GPS Sync $300 > >Any other questions ? > >Gino A. Villarini >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Patrick Leary >Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 4:53 PM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs > >So what is the onesy-twosy price of a Trango Atlas with an extended >range antenna? What is the price for a Canopy Advantage CPE with >extended range? I have plenty of data I've found, but there seems to be >some wide discrepancy here among you folks. > >How about total cost for a Canopy cluster with the BAM, GPS synch, and >other little extra things you need for it to be complete? > >Also, I've heard a number of you talk about availability of third party >improvements like it is a benefit of the Canopy system. Seriously, isn't >that more a reflection of the glaring gaps in Canopy that have led smart >WISP entrepreneurs to capitalize? > >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 Tom DeReggi >Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 1:13 PM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs > >Trango is no where near $400 for Atlas Foxes. Trango's Atlas Fox's >distance >without dish is just about the same as the standard Canopy CPE (same DBI > >antenna). >Remember that Trango lists retail on their site to protest the WISP. >Low >volume WISP special pricing is granted to any WISP. > >Tom DeReggi >RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Anthony Will" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> >Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 11:17 PM >Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs > > > > >>Your numbers are a bit off on the canopy and when i looked on the >> >> >trango > > >>site it looks more in the range of $400 per unit at 30 pack pricing >> >> >for > > >>trango's. I believe your getting that price but at what qualities? >>I have a couple hundred in the air and I have Midwest Wireless the 5th >> >> > > > >>largest WISP in the country playing in my back yard using Alvarions >> >> >junk > > >>BA2 system all over the place. And I also have a local ILEC, >> >> >Stonebridge > > >>and the remains of Xtratyme all over the rest of my coverage area. My >> >> > > > >>PtmP system is all 900mhz and 2.4 ghz using omni's and I dont have any >> >> > > > >>issues with interference. The longest customer link I have on 900mhz >> >> >is > > >>18.5 miles and the longest 2.4 link is 12 miles. I use omni's so that >> >> >I > > >>dont completely destroy the airwaves for others that are playing in >> >> >the > > >>same sand box. >>Canopy pricing: >>AP = $898 (Advantage $1554) Single pricing >>CPE = $267 (Advantage $402 ) 25pack pricing Add $40 a unit for 15 >> >> >mile > > >>range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified) >>CPE = $216 (Advantage $324) 100 pack pricing Add $25 a unit for 15 >> >> >mile > > >>range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified) >> >>Anthony Will >>Broadband Corp. >> >> >>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/ >> >> >>-- >>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: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
