Mike Hammett wrote:
Speed, features, reduced points of failure, price.
If I can setup two complete and separate MT systems for less than the
other guys can... Heck, could probably even setup a wireless ring
using different bands for each link for less than the other guys.
Even the greatest gear will lose out to basic redundancy.
Can you give me some idea what the cost is? Last time I looked the cost
of MT was similar to other vendors.
Speed. I can setup a full duplex link that can do in excess of 70
megabits with a single set of gear. I can increase that in 70 megabit
increments as tower space (for additional antenna) and available
spectrum allow, all having a single Ethernet cable handoff.
What kind of channel space, receive sensitivity, and power output do you
have in such a configuration?
With proper RF engineering, I can have sectors deployed that can
provide 10 megs plus to each user. When your system can do 70 megs
plus, you can fit a lot more customers with higher speeds. He who can
scale wins. The more bigger pipes you sell, the cheaper your
bandwidth becomes. When your bandwidth is cheaper, not only can you
pass this along to your customer, but you can also profit more. I can
have multiple customers on a sector that each can consume more
bandwidth than a Canopy AP could only dream of supplying.
Canopy certainly has the least amount of available bandwidth among the
available systems. However, when it comes to scale, I haven't seen a
single vendor who could colocate more APs at one location than Canopy.
In this case though, I would think comparing MT to another 802.11-based
radio would make more sense. Can't those radios do 10Mbps plus to each user?
In an AP application all electronics are in one system. I don't need
to have a bunch of patch cords and a switch and a router and a {etc}
sitting on a tower. All coax runs into one box that hosts the AP.
All sector to sector to backhaul to backhaul communications are
internal, allowing for greater flexibility in traffic control and
uptime (reduced failures).
I agree it is nice not to have a ton of components. However, the above
would seem to require every radio at the site to be MT or you would
still need to have separate components.
When I implement a QoS feature or a firewall or a {etc} I can do so
directly on the inbound interface, before it has gone completely
through the AP, through a switch, and into a router. The AP is the
router.
Does the QoS feature actually prioritize the radio? Obviously, people
who use a separate route/switch can apply QoS, but it doesn't affect the
radio. The radios we use allow prioritization on the radio itself, which
is very useful.
When I need to add another wireless interface to a system (AP,
backhaul, CPE, etc.), I can just add a mPCI, antenna, and cables.
This is an even cheaper route than a new MT system, which is cheaper
than just about anything else you could do. Again, all of the above
advantages also apply here.
That certainly is nice, but is that going to work in the future when the
system is certified? I didn't think you could have a certified system
where it is possible to add additional radio cards at a later date.
MT (and I believe Star-OS) can do everything. It is far
easier\cheaper to get an MT system certified (which would only require
a firmware that was restricted to US band options) than it is to have
Motorola or Trango or Alvarion completely overhaul their entire lines
to have the same abilities.
I don't agree MT can do everything since it is missing several key
features we require. However, I do agree that the vendors you mention
above don't have the anywhere near the features of MT, nor do I think
they want to. What about the other 802.11-based radios though?
-Matt
--
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
