I have been on this list since 2001. I have seen many toot their own horns whenever they can and I have seen others that dont. I have also seen many get their feathers ruffled way too easy. Either way, there are some that can talk the talk, some that walk the walk, some that talk the walk, and some that walk the talk. As they say, just because you can do something doesnt mean you should. Most of the "talkers" have left the list with their undies in a bind. I suggest that before sending out an email, try to rein your ego in a bit and the list will be better for it. After all isnt this list to help others, or get help, not to be self-serving?
This is not pointed at any one person, just my two cents on the subject. With that said, its been my experience in visiting many WISP's around the country that they are some of the sharpest people around. In my mind, WISP's are a perfect example of good 'ol business ingenuity and entrepreneurship if there ever was one. My hat is off to all of you! -RickG On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Rick Harnish <rharn...@wispa.org> wrote: > Scottie, > > I read the whole thread and I don't see any remarks by Jack Unger that > should be taken personally. He made a very fair and honest observation. I > only wish I knew more about wireless. I have read Jack's book and recommend > it as well, but I think I should read it a few more times and pick up some > other scientific journals to also enhance my knowledge of the subject. > > I also didn't see anything wrong with your post in reply to Lawrence. > Acronyms are used often in present times and I often have to look up the > acronym to see what the author is referring to. Usually in a few keystrokes > I can find the answer, which is a credit to the Internet industry. > > This is a forum of intelligent people and it often challenges our diligence > to enhance our intelligence even more. I do not believe Jack's post was a > direct comment towards Scottie Arnett. I have known Jack for many years and > am always very impressed with the amount of dedication and time he devotes > to our industry. I can only hope that you will someday advance beyond > trying to read extra content into other's posts and understand that most > people don't know who Scottie Arnett is or what contributions you have made > to the industry. I'm sure you have great respect for your accomplishments in > your local marketplace and I applaud you for that. However, WISPA is bigger > than any one small marketplace. WISPA is the sum of lots of small > marketplaces and operators who realize the strength of cooperating and > collaborating with others who have similar interests and challenges. > > Respectfully, > > Rick Harnish > > -----Original Message----- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Scottie Arnett > Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 3:32 AM > To: wireless@wispa.org > Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-) > > Ok Jack, I have to admit, I have not read your book, but if it reads like > this discussion, I have no desire too, unless you 1. either state that your > book is for the advanced wireless subjects, or 2. Thoroughly describe your > acronyms. > > FYI, I do understand most of the poster's acronyms, but for the average WISP > operator, I doubt they do. I have a BS in Electrical Engineering and a BS in > Management of Information Sciences, not to be tooting my own horn. No, I do > not work for Alvarion or Motorola, nor do I have a desire too. > > Maybe I was in the wrong with my post about the poster's acronyms and my > direct criticism with the use of acronyms. I also believe your post was in > direct comment to me about my understanding and involvement of WISP > activities. I publicly admit, I am not a member of WISPA at the moment, and > as long as as an acting officer or "supreme WISPA being" is degrading me, I > will not become a member. > > Scottie Arnett > President > Info-Ed, Inc. > Broadband Internet Service Provider > > ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- > From: Jack Unger <jun...@ask-wi.com> > Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2009 22:39:38 -0700 > >><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> >><html> >><head> >> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> >> <title></title> >></head> >><body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> >>Yep it's too bad that many wireless ISPs have no interest in learning >>about wireless. <br> >><br> >>Scottie Arnett wrote: >><blockquote cite="mid:200910040029.aa21037...@mail.info-ed.com" >> type="cite"> >> <pre wrap="">I am reading your response and can not decipher all your > algorithms? Point that out and I will have a much more understanding of what > you are scientifically trying to say. Most WISPS have absolutely no > scientific background! >> >>John >> >>---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- >>From: "Lawrence E. Bakst" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" > href="mailto:m...@iridescent.org";><m...@iridescent.org></a> >>Reply-To: WISPA General List <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" > href="mailto:wireless@wispa.org";><wireless@wispa.org></a> >>Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 00:15:45 -0400 >> >> </pre> >> <blockquote type="cite"> >> <pre wrap="">I think you guys know most of this already, but here is my > take FWIW. >> >>I'm not a WISP, but I spent 5 years leading the design and development of > an 802.11[agb] security system. We did our own polling solution based on > 802.11e HCCA to solve the RTS/hidden node problem. >> >>All things being equal (which they often aren't) 802.11b will give you a > higher S/N and C/I than 802.11g, because in almost all cases and especially > at higher speeds. 802.11g has to lower the PA power because of the PAPR of > OFDM and meeting the 802.11g EVM spec. >> >>It is true that 2.4 GHz can be very polluted. We found the noise floor to > be really awful. You would be surprised by the number of "entities" that > know they are way over the FCC max power in 2.4 GHz, but I digress. We once > measured over 300 PHY errors a second on an "unused" 2.4 GHz channel. The > number went down to 150 PHY errors a second inside an FCC chamber, if you > can believe that. >> >>Having said all that we didn't use 802.11b at all because it's data rates > are too low for video. >> >>Also while we supported 2.4 GHz, we mostly deployed at 5.8 GHz ISM because > of the increased power available there and the pollution was much less, but > that maybe different now. >> >>For 802.11[ag] mutlipoint, the sweet spot speed wise is 18-36 Mbps. It's > very hard to keep a multipoint system at 48 or 54 Mbps because you need a > great deal of link margin and with all cards you loose power as the speed > increases to maintain PAPR/EVM. For point to point with direction antenna > relief you can often maintain 48 or 54. >> >>Antennae make a big difference, as others have noted horizontal > polarization is usually best and make the beam as narrow as you can afford > because it raises the effective gain. However, if you are in an area where > everyone else is horizontal it can make sense to try vertical. With some of > the antennae we used that was as simple as rotating the antenna 90 deg at > both ends. >> >>Watch out for crappy antennae, cheap cable, bad connectors, and so on. That > can often cost you a few dB. In the product I designed I spent more time > then I care to admit trying to make a very tough loss budget that I set out > as a goal. >> >>There is no substitute for link margin, you can never really have enough. >> >>I can confirm that our sweeps with a spectrum analyzer show lots of > opportunity to use 5 and 10 MHz channels, as others have also noted. For > WISPs it would be "nice" if chip vendors designed the radios so that you > could set the channel bandwidth from 5-40 MHz in 1 MHz increments. It can be > done but probably won't be, although maybe the Microsoft WhiteFI stuff force > the chip vendors to do it. In WiMax and LTE they are already doing some > things close to this. Still 5, 10, and 20 isn't bad and probably hits the > sweet spot or 80/20 rule. >> >>One of the down sides of fitting a 5 or 10 MHz channel in a sweet spot is > that it can change at any time. >> >>Best, >> >>leb >> >>At 9:58 AM -0500 10/1/09, Jason Hensley wrote: >> </pre> >> <blockquote type="cite"> >> <pre wrap="">In 2.4 land, if you have a lot of noise, which protocol > is better - B or G? >>Is it better to run an AP as locked into one mode or is it OK to do a mix? >> >>Max I want off of 2.4 customers is 3meg so not that worried about the extra >>speed that G will provide, but, I would like to know which is more stable? >>I've always thought that B was more stable overall but just provided less >>bandwidth. I've gotten some info that may counter that. What's the >>real-world experience with folks in a high-noise environment, combined with >>a higher useage AP? >> >>I've got an AP that we've run in B mode only for a while. We've started >>having problems with it - speeds go from 3meg at the customer to 200k and >>fluctuate constantly. We've worked with RTS, ACK timeouts, etc etc and >>nothing seems to have improved the stability. For testing purposes we put >>up another AP right next to the one we're having trouble with. Switched > two >>of our gaming clients to that one (setup as G mode only) and they seem to > be >>doing better, but not quite as good as we feel they could be. This is on >>Deliberant AP's (Duos). The backhaul part of it is not the issue - we can >>pull close to 15meg back to our office when cabled into the AP. We have >>other Deliberant APs that are running MANY more clients than this one so we >>know it's not limitations of the equipment. AP is on top of a water tower. >>Have taken all clients off and brought them back on one by one and it did >>not reveal anything significant. With just one customer on the AP started >>acting up again. Swapped radios in the AP thinking we could have one going >>bad and still no luck. >> >>2.4 antennas are H-pol. We have a ton of noise in the area, but we've been >>through basically every channel and it did not help either. Other AP's in >>the vicinity are performing fine. Thought of the multipath issue so we >>raised our test AP up a little higher than the other one. As I said, the >>test AP seems to be better, but next to it on top of the tower we can get >>around 8 or 9 meg down (locked into G mode), but at the CPE's we're still >>barely getting 2.5-2.8meg. >> >>Any thoughts? We changed everything we can. The new "test" AP has a 9db >>antenna compared to the 13db on the "production" AP. Other than that, they >>are identical as far as equipment goes. >> >>So, back to the subject question though, what's real-world experience with >>G-only mode in the field? >> >> >> >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- >>WISPA Wants You! Join today! >><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" > href="http://signup.wispa.org/";>http://signup.wispa.org/</a> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- >> >>WISPA Wireless List: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" > href="mailto:wireless@wispa.org";>wireless@wispa.org</a> >> >>Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" > href="http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless";>http://lists.wispa.o > rg/mailman/listinfo/wireless</a> >> >>Archives: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" > href="http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/";>http://lists.wispa.org/pip > ermail/wireless/</a> >> </pre> >> </blockquote> >> <pre wrap=""> >>-- >><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" > href="mailto:l...@iridescent.org";>l...@iridescent.org</a> >> >> >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- >>WISPA Wants You! Join today! >><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" > href="http://signup.wispa.org/";>http://signup.wispa.org/</a> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- >> >>WISPA Wireless List: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" > href="mailto:wireless@wispa.org";>wireless@wispa.org</a> >> >>Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" > href="http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless";>http://lists.wispa.o > rg/mailman/listinfo/wireless</a> >> >>Archives: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" > href="http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/";>http://lists.wispa.org/pip > ermail/wireless/</a> >>--- >>[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] >> >> >> </pre> >> </blockquote> >> <pre wrap=""><!----> >>Wireless High Speed Broadband service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as > $30.00/mth. >>Check out <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" > href="http://www.info-ed.com/wireless.html";>www.info-ed.com/wireless.html</a >> for information. >> >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- >>WISPA Wants You! Join today! >><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" > href="http://signup.wispa.org/";>http://signup.wispa.org/</a> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- >> >>WISPA Wireless List: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" > href="mailto:wireless@wispa.org";>wireless@wispa.org</a> >> >>Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" > href="http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless";>http://lists.wispa.o > rg/mailman/listinfo/wireless</a> >> >>Archives: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" > href="http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/";>http://lists.wispa.org/pip > ermail/wireless/</a> >> >> >> </pre> >></blockquote> >><br> >><pre class="moz-signature" cols="80">-- >>Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. >>Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" >>Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 >><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" > href="http://www.ask-wi.com";>www.ask-wi.com</a> 818-227-4220 <a > class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" > href="mailto:jun...@ask-wi.com";>jun...@ask-wi.com</a> >> >> >> >> >> >></pre> >></body> >></html> >>--- >>[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] >> >> > > Wireless High Speed Broadband service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as > $30.00/mth. > Check out www.info-ed.com/wireless.html for information. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > 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/ > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.14.3/2412 - Release Date: 10/03/09 > 18:34:00 > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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/
