Lonnie, I think you've done a great job with StarOS. You found a need and went after it with true entrepreneurial zeal. And you've done it all from that remote slice of mountain paradise. I bet your town is proud of you too, since you are a great local success story and a perfect example of the possibilities for smart people in small towns in a global marketplace. I suspect your lifestyle has been majorly elevated since you launched it and that's all well-earned! I remember you pre-StarOS!
You got nothing but my respect. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 8:40 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Real World comparison of Trango-staros-Alvarion I agree that Tom's findings are accurate and mirror the real world, even to the conclusion --> they use our gear at the end of the exercise. It just means we'll have to work on our installation and troubleshooting tools. Lonnie On 9/27/06, Brad Larson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks Tom, Your findings are in line with what many Alvarion operators also > enjoy. Ease of installs and low operational costs. Brad > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 3:28 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: [WISPA] Real World comparison of Trango-staros-Alvarion > > The link: 4.5 miles, 1 Big fat building in the way, barely unable to clear > the roof. Noise floor high. > Limits: Noise Floor to high for PtMP Trango, based on obstruction. > Stats: rssi -75 & -78, noise -79 or worse on Horiz, Vert worse, RSSI almost > 15db below calculations due to NLOS ) > Solution: Install PTP to get more gain on AP side, Add OFDM to help with > obstruction. > > Trango 5830 was invaluable to determine what was going on. It's built-in > survey command was able to determine the noise floor on all channels > accurately, and home in on the fact that the link was marginal because of > gear that used a 20Mhz channel half way between Trango's channels. > > StarOS w/ 28 dbi PAcwireless on both sides- Got -55 & -60 rssi. Good link, > but it was not perfect, with 1 out of 20 large ping packets with high > latency. It would regularly negotiate down to 36mbps or 18 mbps on one side. > > StarOS w/ 28db on one side, and 23dbi on other side- Got -60 & -65 rssi. > Excellent / Perfect link. Stayed constant at 54 mbps, with a very rare > negotiation down to 48mbps or 36mbps. We believe this is becaue one of two > reasons, reflections off the building right back at us, or the wide > beamwidth of lower gain antenna to help use multi-path to optimize OFDM. We > often felt 19-23 dbi antenna ideal for OFDM. This put us above the noise of > > most of the channels, and narrowed our beam compared to PtMP to reduce > noise. OFDM clearly helped to not lose rssi due to the building > obstruction, and gain was not received solely from higher gain of PTP > antennas. > > The problem with STAROS-V3... We ran survey, and picked up ZERO interference > > or devices, but yet we know that there is lots of interfering devices out > there. The "Quality" reading was pointless at either 100% or 13% with very > little correlation to what the link actual performance was. Hard setting > modulation, to 24mbps, left the link unusable, even when Quality of 100 was > shown. When we put modulation on auto, every thing worked well. SNR was > only available on client side, and not accurate, reading only a -95 (which > may have been average, but not peak noise, based on Trango scans). > Basically, with the STAROS box, we were left totally in the dark, on what > the noise environment was. We really missed the detail of the Trango tools, > > and not sure what we would have done, if we had not had a Trango on site > simultaneously gathering test results. We learned via the Trango, that we > could have survived the noise with a 10 Mhz channel, that the StarOS > allowed, but we would not have known where that was without the Trango test > results. We relied on End to End large pings to determine link state during > > tests, and were glad to see the addition of Iperf embedded in StarOS for > more strenuous testing afterwords. > > The end result... We left the StarOS installed for a perfect link, and > defined many possible options should interference need to be battled in the > future. We saved a bunch on hardware, costing us under $1000 in equipment > for the link, and delivered the highest quality link, as any gear could > offer. > > But this brings me to my point of this post. What was the true cost of this > job? I spent a day installing Trango PTMP. I spent a day isntalling StarOS, > both with two engineers. I lost a months revenue, delaying my trips between > upgrades and tests. > > At a price, All these headaches could have been avoided. Most likely Trango > > Atlas PTP would have solved the problem and given us the benefits of Trango > testing tools, and OFDM, and price under $3000. But there was some risk in > trying that solution. In the past we've had difficulty in high noise > environments, and/or to high of RSSI. We did not have an Atlas on hand to > test. > > We took the time to do a test with Alvarion B40 that we had on hand. The > Alvarion picked up the noise in its survey. The Alvarion gave us accurate > SNR readings that we could use to best plan the link configuration. And the > link quality was perfect as well using the 28dbi and 23 dbi antennas. So > had I used the Alvarion VL to begin with, I would have saved our company two > > days in labor, and would have had all the tools that I needed to install the > > link easilly the first time and to adapt in the future. Alvarion clearly > would have been the winning choice. It gave me confidence that in future > jobs IF I had to design a link in advance blind, I could order an Alvarion, > > and it likely would best be qualified to complete the job successfuly. > > I ended up keeping the StarOS in place. The reason was two fold. 1) I > already spent the time, so why not save the money on equipment. And > secondly, at the AP side, I wanted to add a second radio card. Because I > switched the link to PTP, the other client that was being served via the > PtMP, still needed to be served. For $100, I was able to add the second > card, and install a second sector to serve that subscriber still. (two > sectors for the price of one). > > Every product has its value. You be the judge on what product will best suit > > your next project. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 7:48 PM > Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon > > > Patrick, ditto on the 3650 band. However the reality is that self and > external > interference in the UL world is all too common. You say UL bands or at > least VL doesn't need GPS capability because of so much capacity. If > you want I can get you a list of wifi/trango/etc.-to-Canopy 'converts' > that will tell you otherwise. > Licensed carriers use GPS to greatly diminish what we experience as common > day > interference problems. IMO I can't blame the FCC for not giving more > spectrum than they have as we've already trashed what we've been given. > Lastly, what Moto did was brought GPS sync to the UL world however as > standard option and in very economical form factor, not expensive > chassis and such. If you haven't already, get your VL guys with your > WIMAX guys and you could have a clear winner down the road! :) > > Jon Langeler > Michwave Tech. > > Quoting Patrick Leary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Jon, > > > > For sure I'm all over GPS for all licensed (world of small channels) and > > when there is a small amount of spectrum to work with in UL. For > > example, in the coming 3650MHz band, GPS should be a must for PMP. Same > > with scaled 900 (we offer it there). It is just not needed with VL. What > > for? It already gives massive capacity without any re-use. Even with GPS > > and re-use I do not think Canopy can get close to the amount of capacity > > VL can offer. Frankly, even if we had it for VL no one would buy it. > > > > No argument from me on the scheduled MAC front, except to the extent > > that in UL it needs to come with good interference mitigation (not > > talking about self-inflicted interference) techniques to make it useful. > > > > Patrick > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Jon Langeler > > Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 10:37 PM > > To: WISPA General List > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon > > > > Hey Patrick, GPS...there's many reasons and it's not a canopy vs > > alvarion debate from my standpoint, more so a scheduled mac(canopy, > > wimax, 3G...) vs unscheduled(wifi, VL, currently Trango). I'd predict > > that as wisp education progresses, they will realize the power of > > scheduled mac and GPS support. By then maybe the rest of the BreezeMAX > > code will have made way to the VL engineers and everyone can be happy > > :-) > > > > Jon Langeler > > Michwave Tech. > > > > Patrick Leary wrote: > > > >> Jon, > >> > >> Why is that the case? You really think GPS on Canopy is some cool > >> feature? Canopy must have GPS to function. Without it, it kills itself. > >> It is all to prevent self-inflicted interference (remember, Canopy does > >> not even have ATPC) and to allow for channel re-use. Other systems, > > like > >> VL, do not need it. It provides far more capacity than Canopy, so it > >> does not need to re-use channels and with basic channel planning you > >> don't have issues with self-interference. > >> > >> Patrick Leary > >> AVP WISP Markets > >> Alvarion, Inc. > >> o: 650.314.2628 > >> c: 760.580.0080 > >> Vonage: 650.641.1243 > >> > >> > > > > -- > > WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] > > > > 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(42). > > ************************************************************************ > > ************ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ************************************************************************ **** > ******** > > 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: [email protected] > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > -- > 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/ > > > > > > ************************************************************************ **** > ******** > 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). > ************************************************************************ **** > ******** > > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] 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(191). ************************************************************************ ************ ************************************************************************ ************ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(42). ************************************************************************ ************ ************************************************************************************ 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: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
