Bob,

You've been in this industry a long time, and there is not much I can tell you that you do not already know. But respectfully I will reply.

I have no problem with people installing Exalts, they are great radios. I have no problem with other providers and companies installing Radios in DC. There are hundreds of radios on the roofs of thousands of buildings co-existing nicely.

I have a problem with the mentality of, "If I'm OK, thats all that matters, if they got problems, thats their problem". It just doesn't work that way. Because the other party does not just go away and admit defeat. If you are not experiencing this, with your vast experience, the only answer can be that you are installing responsibly with the intent to minimize interfering with others. Because if you were taking down others, they would be fighting back, and you would feel it.

Unfortunately you are not going to get the same latency with a half duplex radio. So latency is one issue. Another is security. Using something that is proprietary also makes your network more secure. So those are 2 good issues to coinsider why to not use something like a Trango for large scale backhaul.

I'm not suggesting Trango or a Half Duplex radio is a better choice.
If you need FDX, you need to select a radio that can do FDX.
Just deploy the best choice for a FDX radio that you can find.
I'm not challenging your choices, Im just pointing out that all WISPs should look for the best choice also considering efficiency as a major factor.

But what do you consider a significant tradeoff???

Thats for you to decide, and wether its worth the taking on the higher risk of using a less efficent radio that could result in gaining a angry competitor.

Again, my beef is not with radio choice, regardless of the type. My beef was with the attitude of "who cares about the other", where the "other" doesn't even become a factor in the decission process.


I'd always recommend a 100mbps FX radio that used 32 mhz of spectrum over one that used 100Mhz of spectrum.


That's fine as long as it meets your business model. But is the 100 Mhz. is more economical and I am not using that spectrum, then why not use it??

Agreed, if its free, use it. If its not, you are putting a big risk on for your client. A 100Mhz radio is more likely to be interferred with by ANY future deployment of someone else. Why not make your client's link more resilient to future threats if you can? Unless you are getting paid by the hour and setting your client up to need Repeat maintenance work :-) So the point is, even if you only care about your self and your client, installing a more efficient radio more immune to future threats shows that you care about them.

There are so many people that just put up links, and then say if I don't have problem with interference thats all that matters. That is selfish and foolish.

What should they do?? Assume that they are causing interference and what??? Shut down???

No. (see next comment)

I think the best you can do is design a system within your knowledge base and budget.

Do exactly what you just said above, and design a system within your knowledge. And your knowledge knows that interference is a key issue that could arise when you install or in the future. And if there is a high noise floor, you are knowledgeable to know a conflict likely may occur. So think ahead, and make the best choice for your custoemr and maximize your resilience, by picking the most efficeint/interference resilient radio that you can, that meets the client's budget. Most integrators sell 100mbps radio because they make more money, not because the client needs it. Educate the client on what they need, and the risks, and make the best choice, considering all factors.

The responsible thing to do is.... to do a channel scan/survey to see the free-est channel, and then broadcast on that channel, with the intent to avoid interference to others.


But you know that's not a given...

So when you did al you could, thats the best you can do, and you deploy what you ahve to deploy. Obviously your responsibility to your link is more important than your responsibility to others' links. But IF you can reduce risk, by selecting a more efficient radio, why would you not do it? Everyone wins.

It is clear as day what is and isn't good etiquette, and those that do not follow it, will ultimately loose in my prediction. In my earlier days, if I felt interference, I just switched to another channel to avoid the conflict, an advantage Trango gave me easilly.

Exalt does that in 1 Mhz. channels. And you can switch polarities via software also.

I agree a Sweet radio. I just wish it was not so darn expensive.

But we don't do it anymore, we hold our ground. If our link is up, and we see new interference on it, we go after the interferer until they move.

What does "go after" mean????

I should have been more clear. We don't really go AFTER the other party. The intent is not to harm. The intent is not to have to completely redesign out network, because a new player installed one new radio. When you got 30 towers, and 100s of APs, in short proximity, a channel change of a radio, often mean a whole series of channel changes, often taking a large part of a day in labor to coordinate and confirm operations of links. So we rarely move channels. By go after, I mean we identify the location or source of interference. And take the appropriate action to resolve interference. First, best practices.

I can tell you, if someone puts up a radio using all 100mhz of spectrum, and it happens to cross one of our cellsite or subscribers taking them down, the offendor's link will be taken down (made unusable) within 24 hours, that I promise and guarantee. Why do I say that, because I'm follow your advise Bob, business is business.

Wait a minute......That is willful interference. I do not condone "willful" interference. So that is not my advise. I don't condone that nor should anyone else associated with WISPA.

This is where I disagree. You just did. Its just plain ignorant to infer that the new isntalled interferor, is not knowingly interfering with another party. If there is existing high Noise, you KNOW you are harming someone, "willful interference", you just don't know who to yet, and you ignore the fact that you are harming someone because of that and the fact that they do not know who you are.

You should be searching them out and working out the issue.

OK, now explain why you didn't do this intially when you installed, and heard the high noise? And decided to handle instead by Blasting over the other louder?

The length of this industry depends on the players. We can rush our selves to extiction or we can preach and follow etiquette.


The length of this industry has to do with competition. If Bill Gates can put up a satellite tomorrow and feed everyone 50 Mb with 1 ms of latency for $19/month, the WISP industry is DEAD! I don't care how you designed your system or how considerate you were to others.

I disagree. Available spectrum is a bigger problem. Competition does not kill industry, providers that give up do.

One of the reasons I did not sell my company this past year, is that everyone that put an offer to buy it, tried to instill the fear of competition in me. Why would I trust my investment to someone (the buyer) that was afraid of competition and what the future had in store for us based on competitive threat? Competition does not scare me. However, flexibility and adaptation is needed to deal with it.

A perfect example is RichBader, that has a thriving hosting business, with average/target ARPUs above $1000, but yet there is $10 hosting providers posted all over the web. His answer was he added value, and sold his value. The wireless industry will evolve just like our competitor's industries.

The problem with using a radio that uses full 100mhz is that there is no way to immediately resurrect interference, with no channel to run to, without contacting the interferor.

See my Walmart comments......... Unfortunately sometimes you can talk to the competition until they are blue in the face and nothing will happen.

Agreed, thats why sometimes extreme measures are needed. What do you do when the antenna can't go any bigger? Thats when people pull out there equalizers, when they get backed into a corner.

Or you use a more efficient radio, and steer around the conflict, when you can. Which brings you full circle to the original comments of this thread, deploy thoughfully from day one.

This forces your interfered with to resort to desperate measures to resolve the interference on their own link. It brings out the worse in your newly created enemy. Its best to allow your apponent a mechanism to cure the problem without being required to taking you down back, and asking questions later. Its about conflict avoidance not winning a conflict.

Agreed...But that is not going to win all the wars unfortunately.. It's the gentlemens way to do things but not everyone in business is a gentleman.

Well, those are the cases that you play hard ball. You pull all your engineering knowledge togeather to be smarter than them.
And the smartest guy wins.

I didn't say be a coward and back off. I said avoid the fight, unless you have to have it.

Don't confise respect for etiquete with weakness.

The truth is its almost impossible to tell whether you will interfere with some one else. The reason is that you can scan for noise, but you can't tell what equipment the other party is using , what noise floor they require to opperate, or the distance of their link. Again if you scan first, and the channel is empty, there is no issue here. But I find it rare in DC to find ANY channel that is "EMPTY".

Oh..Oh......Then I guess you won't be too happy if I tell you I have deployed 5 Exalt links in Wash. DC. 100 Mb 5 Ghz....... <g>

No, I'm happy to hear that, because you must be using thoughtful techniques, because They have not caused me interference that I am aware of, or atleast not that I have not been able to survive.

The challenge is usually what do I have to do to get over the noise floor. A 2ft dish still have a beamwidth of minimum 6deg, which covers a lot of territory indense Urban america.

You can only do the best you can with what you can afford.

I agree. But it doesn't sound like you are installing cheap gear, and you have lots of option within what you can afford.

My reply was not directed towards your response. It was directed to the thread in general. With unlicensed equipment there is going to be interference. And there are going to be companies that will go out of business because they can't compete wether it financially or with spectrum.

I agree.

Business is the oportunity to create something that will provide for others as well as for the owner. The federal government believes competition is good as we all know from the telco/LEC/CLEC/DLEC/ELEC/FLEC...etc, etc situation. But you and I as small business do not want competition (I surely don't...excuse me for being greedy :-)).

If I was in the position, while it is not "nice" play, I would do everything in my power to use up as much of the spectrum as possible to keep others out. The oil companies do it every day. So do the pharmaceutical companies. As do others What the hell...look at Canopy. Do you think Motorola cares if they interfere with everyone and their brother??? No....They care about market share at any legal means possible.

I respect your honesty, and it may be a reality of competition, but....
Thats where I disagree. I do not believe there is anything wrong with installing gear, that you eventually plan to use, to reserve your space in your market. A perfect example is installing a full 360 degrees with 6 sectors of TDD always transmitting gear, even when you may only have 1 client one day one. The intent is to market and use the spectrum that you are operating on. Its even respectful to other players because it tells them where you are, so they can avoid interfering with you.

But what you are suggesting is Spectrum Squatting, a technique that many WISPs use, but that I do not feels respects etiquette or a principle that any WISPA member should support. Wasting spectrum is probably the biggest disservice to consumers, the industry, the goal to deliver broadband to all America, and give consumer's choice. I recognize there are some grey lines on that topic. For example justifying a DSSS radio over a more efficient OFDM, because it may be the reality of last man standing in noisy competitive environements.

Tom DeReggi


And that's BIG business.....

:-)

Have a great day....I have to go install another Exaly link in NYC and I'm late...

-B-


Rant done.

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


----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Moldashel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:11 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options


Matt Liotta wrote:

Matt Liotta wrote:

Its not greedy; efficient maybe, but not greedy.


Whoops... meant inefficient.

-Matt

100 Mb FD on a 32 Mhz. channel.....That's not bad.....

Besides...get the GPS syc option and you can tie in a handful of links on the same channel. That makes them very efficient....

-B-

--
Bob Moldashel
Lakeland Communications, Inc.
Broadband Deployment Group
1350 Lincoln Avenue
Holbrook, New York 11741 USA
800-479-9195 Toll Free US & Canada
631-585-5558 Fax
516-551-1131 Cell

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




--
Bob Moldashel
Lakeland Communications, Inc.
Broadband Deployment Group
1350 Lincoln Avenue
Holbrook, New York 11741 USA
800-479-9195 Toll Free US & Canada
631-585-5558 Fax
516-551-1131 Cell

--
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/

Reply via email to