Please forgive my outburst of rude, brash behavior here. I had a bad day and I should know better than to type while I am mad!

John Scrivner wrote:

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.

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?



-----Original Message-----
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.

-----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



-----Original Message-----
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
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

-----Original Message-----
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-----
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

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" <>
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

site it looks more in the range of $400 per unit at 30 pack pricing

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

BA2 system all over the place.  And I also have a local ILEC,

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

18.5 miles and the longest 2.4 link is 12 miles.  I use omni's so that

dont completely destroy the airwaves for others that are playing in

same sand box.
Canopy pricing:
AP = $898  (Advantage $1554) Single pricing
CPE = $267 (Advantage $402 ) 25pack pricing  Add $40 a unit for 15

range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified)
CPE = $216 (Advantage $324) 100 pack pricing Add $25 a unit for 15

range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified)

Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.

Travis Johnson wrote:

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

are Trango (900mhz, 2.4ghz, 5.8ghz). The Trango product has worked

well for us, and we are located on some mountaintop repeater

that literally have over 100 antennas (paging, HAM, WISPs, etc.)

100 yards of each other.

Our biggest problem is frequency availability at all (regardless of

choice)... we have a 2.4ghz AP at a repeater station that is "full".

attempted to install a second sector today and ran a site survey at

location.... across the entire 2.4ghz band, the "average" signals

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


Jon Langeler wrote:

Tom, I have nothing to gain or lose by telling you what we've not

extensivley tested but also experienced over 6 years. We started

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

there isn't a good product and struggle when their actually is a

darn good one...and on top of that has an upgrade path in it's

it keeps getting better.

ARQ does not affect C/I like FEC does for example. When you say ARQ

fixing any resiliance problems that may be true. But you'll also

from increased latency and less throughput during those

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

retrans. Trango's ARQ is not even an option in the 5800 model which

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

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

WISP neighbor, not because I had to.  Why fight if you can

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.

Trango just adds more polarities as more options to work around it,

when needed.  One of the reasons we like Trango is its resilience

noise, that gives us the abilty to fight it out and stand our

The Foxes w/ DISH, have excellent ARQ and resilience to Noise,

their range and LOS.

When we start to have trouble with Trango, is when we start to push

limits of the technology.  Its a LOS technology that we attempt

with. My arguement is also not that we can't be the last man

Its that when the battle happens the customer sees it, and the

does not tolerate it.  IF a Canopy and Trango went to war, one

survive a little better than the other, but ultimately both

would feel the interference the majority of the time.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband

WISPA Wireless List:



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.8/455 - Release Date:


WISPA Wireless List:



Reply via email to