I know it's done all the time, but I don't believe in wrecking a company just to sell it (not that I plan on selling my operation).
>From a buyer's perspective, I would rather the company hadn't converted operations lately just so that I could convert to what I wanted without having just bought new gear not long ago. >From someone that couldn't care less about Canopy, it pleases me to see people skipping over non-Canopy operations. Now that I'm near a point where I can look at purchasing other operations, it means they have an artificially low price. ---------- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 8:10 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP > There are cheaper options than 10k per sector but you are correct that's > about the going rate between 10 and 15k per sector. However, this > equipment > is not anywhere near the same as the "tinker toys" as Scriv puts it. This > equipment will last you much longer than the commodity equipment. It's > easily twice as spectrally efficient and allows for a much easier > deployment. A number of WISPS are moving to this platform as they find > that > the higher end equipment is worth more on a buyout. > > Lets put it this way. If you have a network to sell, how much more do you > think you will get if you have Cisco instead of Mikrotik? Nothing against > them, but the quality of your infrastructure is heavily weighed during a > buyout. If you don't agree, check the many spam's on this and other lists > from the guys buying networks. Some won't even look at you if you don't > have Canopy or better equipment. > > David Peterson > WirelessGuys Inc. > 805-578-8590 > > On 7/2/08 5:33 PM, "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> $10k for a single AP is why. I can outfit two whole towers with MTI >> sector >> antennas for the price of 1 WiMAX radio. >> >> Gross throughput. My Mikrotik can do 35 megs of throughput vs. 20 >> (albeit a >> larger channel). >> >> I want to use WiMAX as it is more spectrally efficient (most important >> advantage in my eyes), but will not do so until vendors go after the >> masses >> and not early adopters. >> >> >> ---------- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> >> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 3:36 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP >> >> >>> I hope all of you will read this post. I have spent a long time >>> writing it and I think it is very important for us to all think about >>> the issues involved. >>> >>> How about if we tie the 3.65 GHz band to one technology with our >>> wallets instead of making Uncle Sam do it with regulation? We will see >>> which platforms dominate over the next 5 years in wireless broadband. >>> We are going to see some movement away from 802.11 based systems as a >>> platform for delivery of outdoor broadband in all bands in my opinion. >>> I think we will see a move toward licensed WiMax and LTE systems used >>> predominantly for wireless broadband delivery as the next few years >>> progress. I have little doubt that other platforms will be put to use >>> but innovation will not occur from multiple platform distractions away >>> from the goal of building efficient, cost effective and unified >>> systems for outdoor wireless broadband. >>> >>> Do you think mixing several unrelated technologies into he same band >>> is a good idea? I believe that we need to be using ONE platform in >>> 3.65 and we need to all support it. Fragmentation of support, vendors, >>> operators, etc. does not help our collective efforts. We need to >>> decide on a platform and all of us need to use it if we are ever going >>> to make headway as a group. The rest of the world is building WiMax in >>> 3.4 thru 3.8 GHz. I just cannot see why we have to reinvent the wheel >>> here. I assure you that if we all built on this platform that we could >>> get the regulations changed to allow for WiMax use across the entire >>> 50 MHz of this band. With GPS sync and 6 non-overlapping channels we >>> could certainly avoid interference and deliver quality wireless >>> broadband in 3.65 GHz. >>> >>> How does our industry standardizing on a platform like WiMax in 3.65 >>> GHz stifle innovation? I think it does the opposite. I think it >>> provides focus and clarity and economies of scale for a platform >>> designed to provide outdoor wireless broadband. It is our best shot at >>> building interconnected networks with scale and an exit strategy for >>> operators, many having been running wireless broadband networks for >>> over a decade. We are not getting any younger and someday we need to >>> have something that someone will want to buy. >>> >>> I have given much thought to this. I am sure some will doubt what I am >>> saying but I feel very strongly that we need to be setting a standard >>> and supporting it as a group. If we cannot mass our buying power >>> collectively toward a common platform VERY soon then we will not have >>> to worry about it much longer because deeper pockets will do it for >>> us. >>> >>> By most all accounts Telecoms with DSL and CableCos with DOCSIS have >>> flourished by choosing industry standards for their broadband >>> platforms and using it. They all support these same standards. I >>> remember the early days of cable modems when there were 50 proprietary >>> standards. Innovation came when the cable companies and their vendors >>> banded together and built the DOCSIS standard and they all agreed to >>> support it. That is innovation, focus, and efficiency. Why can't we do >>> the same thing and learn from others who have succeeded? How can we >>> achieve economies of scale with several different incompatible >>> systems? I think we better wise up in 3.65 before we end up with an >>> inefficiently used band with little chance of reuse (no GPS sync in >>> 802.11x). >>> >>> All of us need to choose a platform which is designed to provide >>> outdoor broadband efficiently and effectively. WiMax was built to fill >>> this need and we need to start supporting it or face diminishing >>> returns as the billions of dollars from others globally build over >>> us. It is time for us to wake up and smell the coffee. The change is >>> in the air and you need to be aware of it. The rest of the world is >>> building WiMax networks to deliver wireless broadband. How long do we >>> need to wait to see that this is not a fad? This is not just another >>> option. It is how wireless broadband is going to be delivered in the >>> 3.4 thru 3.8 GHz bands globally. Indeed it is how it is being done >>> already. We are just late to the party. >>> >>> Do you think several non-cooperative systems (some of which are not >>> even designed for outdoor wireless) are better than choosing a good >>> standard and all of us supporting it? I am not trying to start a holy >>> war here or anything. I just want to know why many in this group seem >>> to have a preference for 802.11 based systems over systems designed to >>> work better in outdoor environments as we have seen with 802.16 and >>> 802.22, or even other proprietary systems like Canopy for instance? >>> What is the love affair with 802.11? I don't get it. It is not >>> designed for this purpose and yet many here seem to prefer it to >>> systems built from the ground up to do outdoor broadband wireless. >>> What is so bad about picking a good standard and all of us trying to >>> support it instead of having 50 different systems all acting as little >>> islands of users and support? WISPs better get together and make use >>> of this golden opportunity in 3.65 GHz. It is as close to a WISP band >>> as we will likely ever get. If we mess this up then we will not get >>> another chance. WISPs and WISPA are at a crossroads I think. It is >>> time to stop playing with tinkertoys and get out some real tools and >>> go to work. >>> John Scrivner >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Harold Bledsoe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>>> I respectfully disagree. In my opinion, any frequency that is tied to >>>> a >>>> particular standard by regulation will do nothing but stifle innovation >>>> in that band. >>>> >>>> -Hal >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: John Scrivner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> Reply-To: WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org> >>>> To: WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org> >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP >>>> Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 16:14:48 -0500 >>>> >>>> I would like to see WiMax approved for the entire 50 MHz and do away >>>> with the contention mechanism requirement for the upper 25 MHz as >>>> required under the rules. I know this is a flip-flop of position from >>>> our earlier position but frankly I see this as a god opportunity for >>>> WISPs to move up to the next level of reliability and scale. Many >>>> people are building in WiMax with success in the 3.5 to 3.8 GHz bands >>>> across the world. If WiMax were the standard for the 3650 band across >>>> 50 MHz then carriers could easily work together to band plan and move >>>> away from interference. With GPS sync the bands can be reused multiple >>>> times anyway. Sticking with one standard in this band just makes sense >>>> for us. It can be a "WISP band" if we do this. Spanking more out of >>>> 802.11 is old news and needs to be put to bed. It is time to use a >>>> real platform for scalable and reliable outdoor wireless broadband. >>>> WiMax is the path to this in 3.65 GHz. 802.22 will be the standard in >>>> the TV whitespaces (hopefully). It is time for us to standardize and >>>> use something better than repurposed WiFi. >>>> Scriv >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 10:15 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> The energy level for backoff CAN be adjusted. >>>>> >>>>> The FCC says that NEITHER is acceptable, and even though the atheros >>>>> mechanism is just an "energy detection", it will not be allowed. >>>>> This >>>>> is >>>>> what I gathered from an assortment of emails on the topic, some of >>>>> which >>>>> were from the FCC to someone wanting certification. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>> <insert witty tagline here> >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: "Harold Bledsoe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 4:52 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> The RF energy detection mechanism of 802.11a is sort of based on >>>>>> power >>>>>> level. If the preamble is detected and decoded, then the mechanism >>>>>> is >>>>>> activated at -82dBm. Otherwise it requires a relatively high energy >>>>>> level (-62dBm). >>>>>> >>>>>> Although I agree that even -62dBm seems "fair". It would be very >>>>>> useful >>>>>> to know what part of the CCA mechanism of 802.11a does not work for >>>>>> the >>>>>> FCC's contention requirement. If it is not the detection mechanism, >>>>>> then perhaps it is the backoff mechanism? >>>>>> >>>>>> -Hal >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>> Reply-To: WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org> >>>>>> To: WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP >>>>>> Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 01:23:31 -0700 >>>>>> >>>>>> That's nice, but in real life the FCC has simply gotten on a tear and >>>>>> decided that NOTHING qualifies for what they want. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have no idea what the purpose of this rather odd bit of nonsense is >>>>>> about, >>>>>> but when it declares that 802.11 "does not detect dissimilar >>>>>> systems", >>>>>> then >>>>>> nothing can EVER be made to work. After all, the whole "listen >>>>>> before >>>>>> talk" >>>>>> is AN RF ENERGY DETECTOR. If that doesn't work, nothing can. Or, >>>>>> only >>>>>> that device or mechanism the person passing judgement wants to >>>>>> promote >>>>>> will >>>>>> "work". >>>>>> >>>>>> We would spectulate who has bought this favor from the FCC, but in >>>>>> reality, >>>>>> it doesn't matter. I predict NO equipment will be certified for the >>>>>> rest >>>>>> of >>>>>> the spectrum and it will be auctioned for big bucks to some large >>>>>> entity. >>>>>> We'll still be in the same boat 2 years from now, with statements >>>>>> about >>>>>> "we're watching the development of <insert technology du jour here> >>>>>> with >>>>>> interest". >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>> <insert witty tagline here> >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>> To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org> >>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 4:28 PM >>>>>> Subject: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Update from the FCC. This makes is very clear to me what the FCC is >>>>>>> looking >>>>>>> for, if there are any questions or comments feel free. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sincerely, Tony Morella >>>>>>> Demarc Technology Group, A Wireless Solution Provider >>>>>>> Office: 207-667-7583 Fax: 207-433-1008 >>>>>>> http://www.demarctech.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Tony: >>>>>>> Thank you for your inquiry. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the email you mentioned that several companies have obtained >>>>>>> equipment >>>>>>> authorization for operation in the lower 25 MHz of the 3650-3700 MHz >>>>>>> band. >>>>>>> This is correct. In the Commission's evaluation these devices met >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> requirements for restricted contention based protocol operation. >>>>>>> Thus >>>>>>> all >>>>>>> of these devices support contention based protocol, but they only >>>>>>> support >>>>>>> that for similar types of systems. They do not provide for >>>>>>> recognizing >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> coexistence with other dissimilar systems. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In order to obtain the authorization for the full 50 MHz operation >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> system has to demonstrate coexistence with different protocols. At >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> present time the Commission reviews each application on its merit to >>>>>>> determine if the system meets the requirements for such unrestricted >>>>>>> operation. The Commission is monitoring the progress of IEEE 802.16h >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> 802.11y working groups in terms of their plans to extend their >>>>>>> respective >>>>>>> protocols to support coexistence. We are encouraged by this >>>>>>> development >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> think that they are in the right direction. However, it is not a >>>>>>> precondition for authorization. In the absence of any industry >>>>>>> standard, >>>>>>> we >>>>>>> treat each application on a case-by-case basis. One of the tests we >>>>>>> do >>>>>>> apply is the co-existence analysis recommendation currently under >>>>>>> review >>>>>>> by >>>>>>> the 802.19 committee. We would expect to see some simulation to >>>>>>> show >>>>>>> how >>>>>>> the proposed system would behave in the presence of other systems, >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> back-off strategies employed and approaches to fair sharing >>>>>>> mechanisms. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please let us know if you have further questions. >>>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>>> Rashmi Doshi, PhD >>>>>>> Chief, FCC Laboratory Division" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> ------- >>>>>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>>>>>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> ------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>>>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> ------ >>>>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>>>>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> ------ >>>>>> >>>>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>>>>> >>>>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>>>>> >>>>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> ------ >>>>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>>>>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> ------ >>>>>> >>>>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>>>>> >>>>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>>>>> >>>>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> ----- >>>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>>>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> ----- >>>>> >>>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>>>> >>>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>>>> >>>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> ---- >>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> ---- >>>> >>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>>> >>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>>> >>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> ---- >>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> ---- >>>> >>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>>> >>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>>> >>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>>> >>> >>> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> --- >>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> --- >>> >>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>> >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> -- >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> -- >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
