I wouldn't have thought it would, but it kinda supports my point that if you 
can control the other metrics, latency can go much higher on VoIP calls. 




----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



----- Original Message -----

From: "Jeremy" <jeremysmi...@gmail.com> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 9:51:28 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Trango Altum AC PTP test results 


I talked to the Exede guys at AF. After running a speedtest with 650+ms of 
latency they told me that their VoIP works perfectly. I called BS and they had 
it hooked up and said feel free. I called my wife and had about a five minute 
conversation. I have noticed worse lag on the AT&T VoIP service locally (like 
where you are constantly talking over the top of each other). It had two very 
small, almost unnoticeable, points where it 'chopped out' a bit. I was 
completely blown away. Apparently VoIP can work fine with 700ms latency. I 
never would have believed it if I hadn't seen it myself. 


On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Bill Prince < part15...@gmail.com > wrote: 




Well if there is a mention of latency (and whether there is or isn't) will 
speak volumes about the influence (or lack thereof) of the satellite broadband 
industry. And if there is a specification for latency (and I've never 
understood why there isn't), then it should surely be < 500 ms, and more 
reasonably < 100 ms, or possibly < 200 ms. I think the tolerance breakpoint for 
any VoIP-type service is in the area of 200-250 ms. 


Exede claims to support some type of VoIP service these days. Has anyone had 
the opportunity to see how this actually works (or doesn't)? 


bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> On 2/14/2015 9:34 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: 

<blockquote>



I guess we really don’t know what latency, usage limit or price is acceptable 
because the FCC hasn’t told us yet. The Report & Order resulting from 
Proceeding 14-126 didn’t set benchmarks for them. Maybe Mike says 100 ms 
because that’s the limit for CAF II funding. Round trip to the Internet 
exchange point. 





From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 11:11 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Trango Altum AC PTP test results 


100 ms end to end. That user device to the far server. If you're like Josh in 
Alaska, there's 30 - 40 ms before you even get anywhere in the cables down to 
Seattle. The Internet seems to work okay for him. 




----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



From: "Ken Hohhof" <af...@kwisp.com> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 10:12:19 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Trango Altum AC PTP test results 




I think Kurt’s point, which I agree with, is this is a PTP product, and 
backhaul latencies get multiplied by the number of hops, while you only have 
one “last mile”. 

You can perhaps use licensed or other FDD radios for the first few hops and go 
cheap with the last few hops at the farthest reaches of your network, 
especially if there is a plan to upgrade these in the future. That doesn’t work 
so good though if you have a backhaul ring. 

I agree with Rory that 10 ms isn’t a bid deal. I don’t agree with Mike that 100 
ms doesn’t really matter. The problem is that a whole bunch of 10 ms links adds 
up to 100 ms. 

Also I worry that some CDN’s use fancy new TCP stacks that back off based on 
latency rather than packet loss as an indicator of congestion. I think they are 
wrong to assume that everyone uses infinite buffers for queuing rather than 
packet drop, but they don’t ask my opinion. 





From: John Woodfield 
Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 10:01 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Trango Altum AC PTP test results 


Not to mention the UBNT gear under load has at least that much latency... 



John Woodfield Delmarva WiFi http://www.delmarvawifi.com cell (410) 708-1937 


-----Original Message----- 
From: "Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net> 
Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 10:10am 
To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com> 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Trango Altum AC PTP test results 




ADSL latencies used to be over 40ms or more. Cable latencies are about 10ms 
from my router to the first hop so 10ms isn’t that big a deal. I agree with you 
Mike. 

Rory 



From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett 
Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 7:45 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Trango Altum AC PTP test results 


A lot of WISPs get hardons over low latencies, but as long as end-to-end is 
under 100 ms or so, it doesn't really matter. 



----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 




From: "Ken Hohhof" < af...@kwisp.com > 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 8:39:27 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Trango Altum AC PTP test results 



I wonder if WISPs are going to be part of a trend toward higher latencies. 



It used to be customers mainly did web browsing and really noticed whether the 
websites snapped up immediately or lagged. Now everyone is streaming, 
streaming, streaming. And websites are more worried about tracking cookies and 
on-the-fly ad auctions for your eyeballs than responsiveness. Plus people use 
mobile devices and are accustomed to the higher last mile latency of 3G and 
LTE. 



Still it’s a little disappointing to backslide on latency because customers 
don’t value quick response like they used to. They just want mass quantities of 
data to watch video, as cheap as possible. 



I guess gamers still care about ping times. 








From: Erich Kaiser 

Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 7:44 AM 

To: af@afmug.com 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Trango Altum AC PTP test results 




I would assume AF5x is going to be the same issue if you are using GPS? 






Erich Kaiser 

North Central Tower Consulting 

er...@northcentraltower.com 

Office: 630-621-4804 

Cell: 630-777-9291 



On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Kurt Fankhauser < li...@wavelinc.com > wrote: 

I can't afford 8-12ms of latency 7 hops out... Time for some Full Duplex links 
I suppose.... 









Kurt Fankhauser 
Wavelinc Communications 
P.O. Box 126 
Bucyrus, OH 44820 
http://www.wavelinc.com 
tel. 419-562-6405 
fax. 419-617-0110 



On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:43 PM, Erich Kaiser < er...@northcentraltower.com > 
wrote: 

The Mimosa seems awesome so far (Except for lack of SNMP support, which is 
coming in April). If you have GPS sync it seems to run between 8ms-12ms. 





Erich Kaiser 

North Central Tower Consulting 

er...@northcentraltower.com 

Office: 630-621-4804 

Cell: 630-777-9291 


On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Kurt Fankhauser < li...@wavelinc.com > wrote: 

I was hoping to replace a Ligowave link I have that's running on 40mhz. I don't 
feel like burning up a whole 80mhz of spectrum through, so I think I'll be 
buying a PTP-650 especially since I need DFS freq's. 









Kurt Fankhauser 
Wavelinc Communications 
P.O. Box 126 
Bucyrus, OH 44820 
http://www.wavelinc.com 
tel. 419-562-6405 
fax. 419-617-0110 





On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:19 PM, Jeremy < jeremysmi...@gmail.com > wrote: 

I see that they sell them on the 'Trango store' now too. Pretty sweet. 




On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Jeremy < jeremysmi...@gmail.com > wrote: 

Yeah, that is what I was told at Animal Farm also. It seems like doing 
something specific or something in the wrong order makes them not work. Next 
time I guess I'll have to follow directions, LOL. 






On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 8:11 PM, Kurt Fankhauser < li...@wavelinc.com > wrote: 


Jeremy, 



I ended up having to default the units and then follow the quick start guide to 
the T. There must be some bugs to work out in the firmware cause when I ordered 
them the guy told me to follow the quick start to the T. 








Kurt Fankhauser 
Wavelinc Communications 
P.O. Box 126 
Bucyrus, OH 44820 
http://www.wavelinc.com 
tel. 419-562-6405 
fax. 419-617-0110 




On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:59 PM, Jeremy < jeremysmi...@gmail.com > wrote: 

I also didn't follow the guide the first time. On subsequent attempts I did, 
but it seemed like something was wrong with them at that point. Anyway, it's 
nice to see someone having some success. The platform looks like it has a lot 
of potential. 




On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 7:50 PM, Kurt Fankhauser < li...@wavelinc.com > wrote: 


<blockquote>



Jeremy, 



Yes I had issues but I didn't call support. It took me almost 2 hours to get 
the two radios to see each other but I finally got them too. I wasn't following 
the PTP quick start guide like I was told to. When I initially configured the 
radios I disabled the 2nd port (called WAN) in the manual. For some reason they 
would not link until I turned it back on. Even though I wasn't using the WAN 
port. 








Kurt Fankhauser 
Wavelinc Communications 
P.O. Box 126 
Bucyrus, OH 44820 
http://www.wavelinc.com 
tel. 419-562-6405 
fax. 419-617-0110 


On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Jeremy < jeremysmi...@gmail.com > wrote: 


<blockquote>


I had some issues with the configuration and couldn't ever get them to pass 
traffic. Did you run into any issues that required support? 






On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Rory Conaway < r...@triadwireless.net > wrote: 


<blockquote>



I saw that too when I was reviewing the brochure this morning. I was just 
assuming they were considering this a long range product. Kurt, do you mind 
telling me what those radios cost? 

Rory 

From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser 
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 7:36 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] Trango Altum AC PTP test results 





Just got done testing a Trango Altum AC PTP link on the bench. Units are 25db 
integrated panels. Did a 40mhz channel test and 80mhz via UDP. I tried a TCP 
test between two RB2011's and best I seen was 175-180'ish and that was with 
both 40 and 80mhz channels. CPU seemed to be maxing out on the 2011's. 



Has UNI-1 bands and ISM bands. I was hoping it had the middle DFS bands but it 
doesn't :( 







Kurt Fankhauser 
Wavelinc Communications 
P.O. Box 126 
Bucyrus, OH 44820 
http://www.wavelinc.com 
tel. 419-562-6405 
fax. 419-617-0110 




</blockquote>



</blockquote>



















</blockquote>


</blockquote>


Reply via email to