I think we largely agree mostly here Jon. With respect to our 900 and legacy 2.4 hopping stuff a greater skill set may be required. With the VL line this is not the case -- VL and Canopy should be very similar in CPE install time unless you add the Canopy reflector, which should make an install a bit longer than a VL CPE.
On the infrastructure it is true that we have more complexity which translates more required knowledge, but that is a by product of all the options and flexibility we enable, such as 60, 90, or 120 degree sector options, chassis or stand alone AUs, and a wealth of configurable parameters that are not available or adjustable with most other brands. So to that end, I agree that it takes a more knowledgeable operator to fully benefit from VL. And that does make for a challenging sale sometimes since a novice operator is not always able to understand the value some feature brings. I know many guys that never "got" Alvarion until they had experience and/or network size under their belts. I think you'll agree though that an operator should never outsource infrastructure installation to unskilled labor, regardless of brand. 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 Jon Langeler Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 4:28 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Jon, okay, I'm no engineer. But what about the BUSINESS? I'm all about business, that's why in this case the technology actually affects the business case dramatically. For example, of all the products we've deployed(MANY including Alvarion), canopy and the WCDMA solutions we've worked with are the only ones I would have been confortable with outsourcing installations. For me to take that worth a grain of salt, can you name a handful of tier 1 or 2 operators deploying anything in the 5GHz bands? We've had no problems with capacity using canopy(900Mhz aside), and scaling has been absolutely no problem. Interference and lack of excess 5GHz used to be a problem before using canopy. I will definately agree that Canopy has some work to do in the VOIP and/or pps department. It's weakness. But it sounds like they will be improving that in the upcoming 8.2(?) release... Thanks Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Patrick Leary wrote: >Sigh. Jon, I'm really not sure why you beat that drum when examples >exist all around that show it is not true. In fact, no tier 1 or 2 >operator that deploys in the 5GHz unlicensed bands (i.e. operators that >tend to do lengthy trials, comparisons) that I know of has fallen for >that argument either, at least not for long. Many WISPs also know >better. It is only a few Canopy-based WISPs who continue to believe that >GPS is required in the UL bands. Could it be because they have to use it >to get Canopy to scale so they can't imagine how other systems could >scale well without it? > >As for the non-engineer part, it seems Jon that you'd benefit from some >wider non-technical thinking. What about the business? Here are some >BUSINESS-minded things to think about: > >- What about an operator that does not want to be stranded by being >limited in their service offering, such as one that would like to do >scaled VoIP? BreezeACCESS VL can scale VoIP very well where other >systems struggle with only minimal users. Canopy Advantage's VoIP >scaling abilities are there for all to see in Motorola's own white paper >-- 26-28 simultaneous calls per AP only, and that's with a 50% >uplink/downlink configuration. VL can do 10x that and that all equates >to revenue potential. >- What about the LOS-limited coverage of Canopy that might require 2 or >more times the towers to get the same coverage as one cell of VL? Even >cell for cell, CAPEX is now similar between brands, but VL produces >about 2x the geographic coverage. Canopy requires more cells (i.e. >higher OPEX due to more cell leases and more sectors to maintain) and >needs more premium sites. >- And that's not counting the customer accessibility -- even within the >exact same geography, VL can "see" many more of the potential customers >than can Canopy. >- And what about cell capacity? Using the same channel sizes, Canopy >needs 2x the sectors to get still 15% less than VL? >- And what about subscriber capacity? Anyone in the cell that wants more >than 14mbps is totally out of the revenue picture and business model -- >even with a Canopy ptp. BreezeACCESS VL pmp can connect 15mbps, 20mbps, >25mbps and even higher speed demanding customers. >- And for sure now even the cost equation is now equal or better for VL >than Canopy both per cell and per CPE since the advent of the >AlvarionCOMNET program for WISPs. > >If you analyze completely today, you may find that Canopy's GPS ability >is the only thing left that can even be spun as being an advantage over >BreezeACCESS VL since we have come out with v.4.0 and the AlvarionCOMNET >program. And when you realize that Canopy needs 2x sectors PER cell (to >get the same capacity) and about 2x cells PER geography (to achieve the >same coverage) -- it becomes pretty clear why Canopy must have GPS. > >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 Jon Langeler >Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 1:06 AM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived > >Marlon, if that's the type of product your looking for, I'll save you >the hassle of looking (and you can come back to this post in 5-10 years >to make your conclusions on my recommendation) because your best best is > >to go with canopy or wait until a 5GHz 802.16e solution comes out(not >likely soon). If Alvarion would get an actual ENGINEER to debate about >their RF technology compared to others on-list, that would be the day >:-) > >Jon Langeler >Michwave Tech. > >Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: > > > >>Got it. Thanks. >> >>I guess my "beef" comes from being a wifi based wisp. I find it too >>difficult to reject interference with a csma based product. Anything >>with a "wait for clear air, then transmit" MAC is GREAT for >>collocation. But sucks when there are products around that don't >>follow that mechanism. That's (my personal belief) why Canopy went >>with it's GPS sync. It doesn't care who's already out there, when >>it's time to transmit it does. Trango does that to, just without >>sync'ing the AP's. >> >>My REAL world experience so far is that csmak (or csma/ca, or whatever >> >> > > > >>collision avoidance scheme you want to use) is GREAT where there >>aren't many other systems within ear shot of the radios. However, >>when there are other devices in the area, especially those that don't >>have a collision avoidance mechanism, the csma radio will pay a heavy >>price in performance. >> >>Having used both csma and polling products, I'm not putting in any >>wifi type products at 5 gig. All of our next gen products will be >>polling as long as we can keep things that way. >> >>These days, I'm learning to sacrifice raw performance for reliability >>and uptime. There's a balance, sure, but getting that last 10 to 20% >>out of a product is less important to me than having a product that >>can survive some of the games that my less scrupulous competitors >> >> >play. > > >>However, with EITHER technology choice, it's critical to design a >>network that can, and does, physically (antenna choice and ap >>locations) isolates your system as well as you possibly can. That >>seems to be the type of trick that just can't be taught. Your network >> >> > > > >>designer either gets it or he doesn't. Heck, I've even done >>consulting gigs where I looked a guy right in the eye and gave them >>several choices for site locations. Only to have them pick something >>completely different, and sometimes unworkable. >> >>80 to 90% of people's problems with wireless are self inflicted. >>Either outright or in a lack of forethought manner. >> >>Here's an idea for you Patrick. Make this product work both ways. >>Give it the option to be either csma or some fancy new version of >>token ring. Then we could optimize performance for any environment >>that we find ourselves in. >> >>Oh yeah, I remember the big hubbub about GPS in the BreezeACCESS II >>line. Why was it important for collocation then but not now? >> >>Hope you guys all had a great Christmas! >>Marlon >>(509) 982-2181 Equipment sales >>(408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services >>42846865 (icq) And I run my own >> >> >wisp! > > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>www.odessaoffice.com/wireless >>www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam >> >> -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org 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(190). ************************************************************************ ************ ************************************************************************ ************ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(43). ************************************************************************ ************ ************************************************************************************ 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: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
