Your point is extremely valuble considering there are alot of people out there 
claiming to use point to point radios when in reality they are putting up a 
Multipiont ap and sm with the spray and pray mantality. ( extremly unengineered 
and poorly erenginered.)  Some of those same people don't have any kind of 
safty program. Yet they want to hire someone else to take all the risk not pay 
them and have the audasity to point the finger at someone else when they have 
issues. Usually done because as you stated they only care about "me" and could 
really care less about the industry the customers or average Joe that is just 
trying to connect two offices that are miles or blocks apart that doesn't even 
fit on the competion platform.
 
There are alot of start ups that do this. I can't tell you how many I have 
worked with. Some are members of this digest.  Its the same old game of " I'm 
and expert" after only a yr or so in the industry.  While thats great for an 
upstart that doesn't really have any competition it is a grave industry down 
fall.  Unengineered or poorly engineered links end up eating alot of man hours 
troubleshooting. The spray and pray mantality has no place in our industry its 
for amatures.
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options


Considering my name comes up here several times I guess I should reply.... 
 
 
Tom DeReggi wrote: 
 
> So there is no misunderstanding. My original comment was based on > radios 
> like early WMUX, that used the whole spectrum range. 
> I have nothing against high capacity radios 100mbps FDX and Higher. I > don't 
> have anything against selecting higher capacity radios when > needed, or 
> chosing a radio that is less efficient because it is the > only radio capable 
> to meet the need, or required to get the job done. 
> 
> Where my beef is, is using an unefficient radio to accomplish > something 
> when an efficient radio is available to deliver equivellent > speed (at a 
> reasonable cost). Price is not everything. As WISPs we > have a 
> responsibility to do the best job we can. We are not obligated > to 
> sacrifice, but we are obligated to live by example and do the best > we can, 
> with consideration of others in the environment. If someone > is doing that, 
> I have no beef, regardless of the technology that is used. 
 
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. 
 
> 
> My post was not about wether PTP or PTMP or any specific radio or > 
> deployment design was more efficient than another, and irrelevent > because 
> there is a requirement for all types that have issues more > important than 
> the efficiency. My point was what ever method was > chosen, the provider 
> should be aware to install the most efficient > system possible that does not 
> have a significant trade off, within > reason. 
 
But what do you consider a significant tradeoff??? 
 
> 
> 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?? 
 
> 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??? I think the best you can do is design a system within your 
knowledge base and budget. 
 
> Its not true that interference is bi-directional.  
I know that... 
 
> The high gain system is going to kill the lower gain system.  
Usually. C/I is obviously important. 
 
> 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... 
 
> 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.  
> 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 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. You should be searching them out and working out 
the issue. 
 
 
> What comes around goes around. I got a radio on the shelf that I call > the 
> Equalizer ready and waiting, and 200 class A/B roof tops to create > a 
> ligitimate PtP link to take it down. NOBODY is above/invulnerable > to 
> interference. And a tech is fooling theirself is their strategy is > they are 
> always going to deploy smarter than the next guy. We all have > the same gear 
> available to us. 
> 
> 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. 
 
> 
> Bob, I also use narrow beam 2ft antenna with low tx power for short > PTPs to 
> avoid interference, and sometimes that works well enough (even > with 
> spectrum wasting radios). But not always. Sometimes it send a > large number 
> of reflections bouncing all across the city which are > adative to all the 
> other noise sources. I'd still argue using a radio > that is more efficient 
> will have less risk, if one is available that > can meet the need. 
> 
> 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.  
> 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. 
 
> 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> 
 
> 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. 
 
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. 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 a
 bout market share at any legal means possible. 
 
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/ 
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL.  Most comprehensive set of free safety and security 
tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free 
AOL Mail and more.
-- 
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