RE: [WISPA] Wispcon?
Title: Message Hi Chris, Here is something that Steve Stroh (who is a member of this listserv and who speaks at ALL shows including WISPCON, ISPCON, WiNOG) wrote about WiNOG http://www.winog.com/austin_2006/vendors/what_i_learned_at_winog.pdf (P.S. -- he wasn't paid by us to do this or anything) -Charles ---WiNOG Austin, TXMarch 13-15, 2006http://www.winog.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of chris cooperSent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 6:59 AMTo: 'WISPA General List'Subject: [WISPA] Wispcon? SO what do most folks here do about shows like wispcon? I attended the one in DC last year and it appeared to be sparsely attended both on the wisp and vendor sides. I always thought the shows were a good chance to get together and share ideas etc. Do you value them? If you could attend one show would it be wispcon/ispcon/winog? Thanks, chris -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] 900MHz performance (Latency, Throughput)
Title: Message old news =) that was covered at the last WiNOG http://www.winog.com/park-city_2005/sessions/day2_900mhz_bakeoff.htm another place to check is http://www.wispreviews.com (the login script is broken, but if you fiddle around with it, you should be able to get in) -Charles ---WiNOG Austin, TXMarch 13-15, 2006http://www.winog.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dylan BouterseSent: Monday, February 20, 2006 9:17 AMTo: WISPA General ListSubject: [WISPA] 900MHz performance (Latency, Throughput) We are in the beginning stages of evaluating 900MHz for our wireless portfolio. I’m very interested to hear about implemented systems and what kind of max throughput and latency is expected. Any help is greatly appreciated. Dylan Bouterse . Sr. System Engineer___p. 352.253.2200 f. 352.742.2211 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] i. http://www.power1.com - www.onepowerfulsolution.com - www.power1golf.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Wispcon?
Title: Message Hi Linda, This is what Steve Stroh has to say about WiNOG, WISPCON, Broadband Wireless World, WiMAXWorld WiNOG is well-positioned to serve a segment of the Broadband Wireless industry that has gone unnoticed and unserved. PART-15.ORG’s WISPCON focuses on smaller and startup Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs), The combination of Wireless Communications Association’s (WCA) two annual conferences, Shorecliff Communication’s Broadband Wireless World, and Trendsmedia’s WiMAX World focuses on much larger Broadband Wireless Internet Access Service Providers. WiNOG targets WISPs that are well beyond the startup phase in longevity of business, overall scale of business, network, and number of customers, but have not yet grown to have their needs met by the three larger conferences. This is a very real, but specialized market segment, and Charles Wu, Operating Manager of CWLab, has laser-focused WiNOG to serve this segment very well. While WiNOG is an ideal conference to attend for WISPs that are intent on growing larger and have already started to endure the “pains” of growth, WiNOG’s main audience is to provide peer-to-peer experience exchanges between the “Big WISPs”. Full article is: http://www.winog.com/austin_2006/vendors/what_i_learned_at_winog.pdf -Charles ---WiNOG Austin, TXMarch 13-15, 2006http://www.winog.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 6:38 PMTo: Linda Pond; WISPA General ListSubject: Re: [WISPA] Wispcon? Hiya Toots! That last joke you sent me want funny! I'd have beaten the biker dude! LOL Anyhow, which show you should go to really depends on what you want to do. If I had my way I'd go to ALL of them. They ALL have something to offer if you're willing to listen and learn. I just got back from the annual www.ec-expo.com. That's a free show with lots of product specific stuff. There's a GREAT group that goes to this one and lots of help is available. Charles, Matt, I, Damien (Tranzeo), and a few others (forgive me) had a very good very high level chat about a number of things. I picked up quite a few new bits from here and there. AND I ran into David Huges. I hope I am half as with it at 78 as he is! (Yeah yeah, I'm already half as good. Har har grin) WISPCON has always been about nothing but wisps. WCA is more carrier based. ISPCon is a GREAT show. The wireless track is light as there's usually only one track. But there's a lot to running a wisp than just wireless stuff. I think about the best mix would be to go to one or two different ones each year. That help? Marlon(509) 982-2181 Equipment sales(408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp!64.146.146.12 (net meeting)www.odessaoffice.com/wirelesswww.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Linda Pond To: WISPA General List Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 2:10 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wispcon? Excellent post, Tom. I have been an attendee and a presenter at WISPCON I and II. Once with an Optical Wireless company, Plaintree Systems and once with Marlon's startup of 2002, WNOC. Both were outstanding experiences. I personally got alot of value from the WISPCON shows, especially meeting the people behind the posts on this (and other) lists. Those WISPCON days were more about the relationships. This list has some close roots, and the shows then were about connecting, wirelessly and spiritually, so-to-speak. I met Marlon and Bullet and Steve Stroh (hiya Steve!) for the first time in Chicago, and it was a hoot! Learning and having fun are two things that do it for me, especially if I can do them at the same time. I have been away from the direct WISP loop since 2002, running my own kind of Networking business. However, I still enjoy the WISP list conversations, and have stayed in touch. And am glad I did stay in touch, for I have just signed an agreement to work with a company called Arryba Communications - whose mission is to provide high speed Internet to Rural Eastern Ontario (that's me!). Besides being obvious self-interest, Arryba has a very interesting business model, and their timing and leadership are spot on. I would like to attend a spring show, and would be interested in knowing where the best shows are now, for its time for me to reconnect with the WISP world. Mar
RE: [WISPA] 900MHz performance (Latency, Throughput)
Title: Message >Are there any notes from the session? The winog website doesn’t show anything. it's one of those things where you "kinda have to be there" >Also, you mention the login script is broken on wispreviews.com but I can’t even browse the forms as a guest. Here's the problem Due to excessive spamming / trolling, we had to configure the forums where you can't browse unless you have a user account (there's no charge for that) the problem is is that the site got hacked about 1-2 months ago, and although we were able to recover the database, the login script (though working) -- is misleading b/c when you log in, it goes to a file not found page (if you go back, the cookie is saved and you are technically logged in) to compound the problem, the administrative interface is broken too, so it is impossible for me to log in and change things our current network admin guy can't seem to figure it out -Charles P.S. I'm still looking for a goodphp guy to help fix things here ---WiNOG Austin, TXMarch 13-15, 2006http://www.winog.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dylan BouterseSent: Monday, February 20, 2006 10:07 PMTo: WISPA General ListSubject: RE: [WISPA] 900MHz performance (Latency, Throughput) Dylan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles WuSent: Monday, February 20, 2006 8:10 PMTo: 'WISPA General List'Subject: RE: [WISPA] 900MHz performance (Latency, Throughput) old news =) that was covered at the last WiNOG http://www.winog.com/park-city_2005/sessions/day2_900mhz_bakeoff.htm another place to check is http://www.wispreviews.com (the login script is broken, but if you fiddle around with it, you should be able to get in) -Charles ---WiNOG Austin, TXMarch 13-15, 2006http://www.winog.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dylan BouterseSent: Monday, February 20, 2006 9:17 AMTo: WISPA General ListSubject: [WISPA] 900MHz performance (Latency, Throughput) We are in the beginning stages of evaluating 900MHz for our wireless portfolio. I’m very interested to hear about implemented systems and what kind of max throughput and latency is expected. Any help is greatly appreciated. Dylan Bouterse . Sr. System Engineer___p. 352.253.2200 f. 352.742.2211 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] i. http://www.power1.com - www.onepowerfulsolution.com - www.power1golf.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] 900MHz performance (Latency, Throughput)
FWIW -- wispreviews is just a little blogging site to help people in the industry out We used PhpBB b/c it was easy to setup and fairliy intuitive (for not so computer savy people like me) Do you have any better suggestions? -Charles P.S. -- if it'd help the list, I can still access the databases, and I could post the 900 Mhz stuff on the listserv for all to see - as text though =( --- WiNOG Austin, TX March 13-15, 2006 http://www.winog.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 11:44 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 900MHz performance (Latency, Throughput) Charles Wu wrote: > P.S. I'm still looking for a goodphp guy to help fix things here > The first step would be to stop using PHP or for that matter any other language that encourages unmaintainable code. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Wispcon? - OFFLIST
Title: Message
Hi
Linda,
This
is offlist, since I don't want to spam the listserv with Unsolicited Commercial
Email
The
next event is scheduled for March 13-15, 2006 -- check our website: www.winog.com for a full list of exhibitors /
speaking sessions / etc
btw --
we're still working out the details w/ the new WISPA board this year, but we've
got an arrangement from past shows where we offer a WISPA discount coupon
code (use WISPA06 when registering online) which will give a $100 off conference
registration -- in addition, for each person who uses the code, we make a $50
donation to WISPA
-Charles
---WiNOG Austin, TXMarch
13-15, 2006http://www.winog.com
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Linda PondSent: Monday, February 20, 2006 11:34
PMTo: WISPA General ListSubject: Re: [WISPA]
Wispcon?
Thanks, Charles. Steve had lots of great
things to say about WiNOG. Good work.
When is the next one, hmmm?
Linda
Linda PondPresidentCustomer
Connects"Bridging Technology Relationships"www.customerconnects.com613-253-0240
(w)613-291-2884 (c)BLOG: http://lindaleepond.blogspot.com/
- Original Message -
From:
Charles Wu
To: 'WISPA General List'
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 8:18
PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Wispcon?
Hi
Linda,
This is what Steve Stroh has to say about WiNOG, WISPCON, Broadband
Wireless World, WiMAXWorld
WiNOG is well-positioned to
serve a segment of the Broadband Wireless industry that has gone unnoticed
and unserved. PART-15.ORG’s WISPCON focuses on smaller and startup Wireless
Internet Service Providers (WISPs), The combination of Wireless
Communications Association’s (WCA) two annual conferences, Shorecliff
Communication’s Broadband Wireless World, and Trendsmedia’s WiMAX World
focuses on much larger Broadband Wireless Internet Access Service
Providers.
WiNOG targets WISPs that are
well beyond the startup phase in longevity of business, overall scale of
business, network, and number of customers, but have not yet grown to have
their needs met by the three larger conferences. This is a very real, but
specialized market segment, and Charles Wu, Operating Manager of CWLab, has
laser-focused WiNOG to serve this segment very well. While WiNOG is an ideal
conference to attend for WISPs that are intent on growing larger and have
already started to endure the “pains” of growth, WiNOG’s main audience is to
provide peer-to-peer experience exchanges between the “Big WISPs”.
Full article is: http://www.winog.com/austin_2006/vendors/what_i_learned_at_winog.pdf
-Charles
---WiNOG Austin,
TXMarch 13-15, 2006http://www.winog.com
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181Sent: Monday,
February 20, 2006 6:38 PMTo: Linda Pond; WISPA General
ListSubject: Re: [WISPA] Wispcon?
Hiya Toots!
That last joke you sent me want funny!
I'd have beaten the biker dude! LOL
Anyhow, which show you should go to really
depends on what you want to do. If I had my way I'd go to ALL of
them. They ALL have something to offer if you're willing to listen
and learn.
I just got back from the annual www.ec-expo.com. That's a free
show with lots of product specific stuff. There's a GREAT group that
goes to this one and lots of help is available. Charles, Matt, I,
Damien (Tranzeo), and a few others (forgive me) had a very good very high
level chat about a number of things. I picked up quite a few new
bits from here and there. AND I ran into David Huges. I hope I
am half as with it at 78 as he is! (Yeah yeah, I'm already half as
good. Har har grin)
WISPCON has always been about nothing but
wisps.
WCA is more carrier based.
ISPCon is a GREAT show. The wireless
track is light as there's usually only one track. But there's a lot
to running a wisp than just wireless stuff.
I think about the best mix would be to go to
one or two different ones each year.
That help?
Marlon(509)
982-2181
Equipment sales(408) 907-6910
(Vonage)
Consulting services42846865
(icq)
And I run my own wisp!64.146.146.12 (net meeting)www.odessaoffice.com/wirelesswww.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
RE: [WISPA] Wispcon? - OFFLIST
Title: Message
doh
=(
Someone once told me, if you don't know what you're doing, just act
extremely confident, and people will assume that what you're doing is
correct
-Charles
---WiNOG Austin, TXMarch
13-15, 2006http://www.winog.com
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Mark KoskenmakiSent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 12:05
PMTo: WISPA General ListSubject: Re: [WISPA] Wispcon? -
OFFLIST
When this happens, I always feel better...
At least I know other people aren't perfect, too :)
North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061personal correspondence
to: mark at neofast dot netsales inquiries to: purchasing at
neofast dot netFast Internet, NO
WIRES!-
- Original Message -----
From:
Charles Wu
To: 'Linda Pond' ; 'WISPA General
List'
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 10:03
AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Wispcon? -
OFFLIST
Hi
Linda,
This is offlist, since I don't want to spam the listserv with
Unsolicited Commercial Email
The next event is scheduled for March 13-15, 2006 -- check our
website: www.winog.com for a full list of
exhibitors / speaking sessions / etc
btw -- we're still working out the details w/ the new WISPA board
this year, but we've got an arrangement from past shows where we
offer a WISPA discount coupon code (use WISPA06 when registering
online) which will give a $100 off conference registration -- in addition,
for each person who uses the code, we make a $50 donation to
WISPA
-Charles
---WiNOG Austin,
TXMarch 13-15, 2006http://www.winog.com
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Wispcon? - OFFLIST
Title: Message Hi Victoria, It is being held at the Hilton Austin Airport -- which incidentally happens to be a Southwest Airlines destination http://www.winog.com/austin_2006/hotel.htm We've set up free airport transportation to/and from the hotel -- and a killer hotel room rate of $99 / night (expedia.com lists the Hilton at $179 / night) -Charles ---WiNOG Austin, TXMarch 13-15, 2006http://www.winog.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Victoria ProfferSent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 12:23 PMTo: 'WISPA General List'Subject: RE: [WISPA] Wispcon? - OFFLIST Hey Charles, Checking out the conference but not finding location details. Where is it being held in Austin? Thanks! Victoria Proffer www.StLouisBroadBand.com 314-974-5600 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles WuSent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 12:14 PMTo: 'WISPA General List'Subject: RE: [WISPA] Wispcon? - OFFLIST doh =( Someone once told me, if you don't know what you're doing, just act extremely confident, and people will assume that what you're doing is correct -Charles ---WiNOG Austin, TXMarch 13-15, 2006http://www.winog.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark KoskenmakiSent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 12:05 PMTo: WISPA General ListSubject: Re: [WISPA] Wispcon? - OFFLIST When this happens, I always feel better... At least I know other people aren't perfect, too :) North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061personal correspondence to: mark at neofast dot netsales inquiries to: purchasing at neofast dot netFast Internet, NO WIRES!- - Original Message - From: Charles Wu To: 'Linda Pond' ; 'WISPA General List' Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 10:03 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Wispcon? - OFFLIST Hi Linda, This is offlist, since I don't want to spam the listserv with Unsolicited Commercial Email The next event is scheduled for March 13-15, 2006 -- check our website: www.winog.com for a full list of exhibitors / speaking sessions / etc btw -- we're still working out the details w/ the new WISPA board this year, but we've got an arrangement from past shows where we offer a WISPA discount coupon code (use WISPA06 when registering online) which will give a $100 off conference registration -- in addition, for each person who uses the code, we make a $50 donation to WISPA -Charles ---WiNOG Austin, TXMarch 13-15, 2006http://www.winog.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] 900MHz performance (Latency, Throughput)
Well...look at http://www.wispreviews.com It's basically a blog site where WISPs post reviews of the gear they've used (expeiences, 2 thumbs up, stuff sucks, etc) In an idea world, I'd like something like DSL Reports -- where you could even rate it and stuff -- but being a free site, we don't have much from a budget perspective -Charles --- WiNOG Austin, TX March 13-15, 2006 http://www.winog.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 12:38 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 900MHz performance (Latency, Throughput) Charles Wu wrote: >Do you have any better suggestions? > > > What are your requirements? -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Solectek Skyway 7000
Title: Message Hi Matt, Your questions on the Skyway 7000 & Trango Atlas would be answered by our Backhaul Bash Report (costs $3k) or--you can go to WiNOG and see a presentation of the results live http://www.winog.com/austin_2006/sessions/day3_backhaul1.htm http://www.winog.com/austin_2006/sessions/day3_backhaul2.htm -Charles ---WiNOG Austin, TXMarch 13-15, 2006http://www.winog.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt GlavesSent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 8:50 PMTo: wireless@wispa.orgSubject: [WISPA] Solectek Skyway 7000 I have never used the Solectek equipment and am looking at either trying their Skyway 7101 or the Trango Atlas for some short building to building links. I have seen enough favorable posts about the Atlas to know plenty of you are using it successfully – although I sure wish I could get one of their sales folks to return a phone call. Leave a message about buying 250 CPEs and no one calls back Anyway J I would like to get opinions on the Skyway 7000. This would be for very short <.5 mile links between buildings. We would normally use Terabeam/Proxim systems but are looking for alternatives with similar capabilities and 20-40% lower cost. Any info/opinions on reliability and real world throughput would be great. Thanks, Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Solectek Skyway 7000
Title: Message Have you looked at Airaya's web site? It's pretty informative: http://www.airaya.com/products/p2m.asp -Charles ---WiNOG Austin, TXMarch 13-15, 2006http://www.winog.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 10:05 AMTo: 'WISPA General List'Subject: RE: [WISPA] Solectek Skyway 7000 Whats the deal n the airaya stuff? Are they making the 5.3 stuff? What are the specs? Dan MetcalfWireless Broadband Systemswww.wbisp.com781-846-6798 ext 6201[EMAIL PROTECTED]support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 11:04 AMTo: WISPA General ListSubject: Re: [WISPA] Solectek Skyway 7000 Hiya Matt, I used to sell Solectek gear. Years ago. It was a good company with good gear as I recall. If you are up and running and have a good reputation in your market it never hurts to try new toys. These days most of the gear I'm buying for links like that comes from Airaya. It's great stuff and I LOVE the 5.3 band! laters, Marlon(509) 982-2181 Equipment sales(408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp!64.146.146.12 (net meeting)www.odessaoffice.com/wirelesswww.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Matt Glaves To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 6:49 PM Subject: [WISPA] Solectek Skyway 7000 I have never used the Solectek equipment and am looking at either trying their Skyway 7101 or the Trango Atlas for some short building to building links. I have seen enough favorable posts about the Atlas to know plenty of you are using it successfully – although I sure wish I could get one of their sales folks to return a phone call. Leave a message about buying 250 CPEs and no one calls back Anyway J I would like to get opinions on the Skyway 7000. This would be for very short <.5 mile links between buildings. We would normally use Terabeam/Proxim systems but are looking for alternatives with similar capabilities and 20-40% lower cost. Any info/opinions on reliability and real world throughput would be great. Thanks, Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ --No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.0.0/267 - Release Date: 02/22/2006 --No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.0.0/267 - Release Date: 02/22/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Sales & Marketing of Unlicensed Wireless Services -- Some Observations
Generally, we end up debating all day and all night on the lists of "what's the best radio" or "who's got those cool blue lights" -- however, FWIW, I've noticed that there seldom is any debate on "useful" topics like sales & marketing (especially of the product positioning of license-exempt wireless) Do we call it wDSL? Wireless? More than Wifi? WiMAX? -- who knows? But fuel the fire with a few observations - - ARPU is an acronym for the Average Revenue per User. This is the average revenue factored across all customers as if each were charged the same price -- with some customers charged less and others more. Customer type usually determines price. In addition, a Network Operator's valuation is a direct multiple of its ARPU. The Marginal Recurring Cost (MRC) as compared to its Service Level / Marginal Recurring Revenue (MRR) of delivering the following license-exempt broadband wireless "WiMAX" connections have been calculated as follows: Broadband "Lite" Residential Service (512 / 512 Kb Burstable) MRR: $24.95 MRC: $20 Best Effort Residential Service (5 Mb / 512 Kb Burstable) MRR: $39.95 MRC: $20 Best Effort Business Class Service (5 Mb / 1 Mb Burstable) MRR: $149.95 MRC: $25 Dedicated Business Class Service (5 Mb / 3 Mb Burstable) (1 Mb / 1 Mb Dedicated) MRR: $249.95 MRC: $30 Dedicated Business SLA Service (5 Mb / 3 Mb Burstable) (3 Mb / 3 Mb Dedicated) MRR: $449.95 MRC: $40 Looking at the numbers, it's obvious that a higher ARPU increases the overall health of the bottom line. Interestingly enough, all the following service plans are achieved using the EXACT SAME license-exempt broadband wireless access technology. So why is the differentiating factor that allows some WISPs to sell that Canopy/Trango/Alvarion/whatever last mile connection for $300+ month ARPU while other can barely get $30 / month ARPU? IT'S OBVIOUSLY MORE THAN "JUST" TECHNOLOGY... - - -Charles -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Wisp In Killington VT?
Title: Message East Coast Snow =( Go Rockies -- east coast is WAY too icy -Charles ---WiNOG Austin, TXMarch 13-15, 2006http://www.winog.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of G.VillariniSent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 4:52 PMTo: 'WISPA General List'Subject: [WISPA] Wisp In Killington VT? Hey folks, I up in Killington VT doing some skiying… Who the wisp servicing the area with Trango stuff? Gino A. Villarini, Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.aeronetpr.com 787.273.4143 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Sales & Marketing of Unlicensed Wireless Services --Some Observations
Generally speaking, we have found the cost/time to sell a customer is the same no matter how large the service delivered is. In other words, it takes just as long to sell a "DS3" as it does a "T1" even though the "DS3" is significantly more profitable. Hi Matt, I would disagree with you on the above statement IMO, I've found that the SMB service offering (e.g., sub-T1 to 3xT1) plans seem to be the most profitable (highest margin) opportunities available Once you get to "carrier services" (e.g., 10+ Mb) -- the big guys start to take notice and completely drop their pants -Charles --- WiNOG Austin, TX March 13-15, 2006 http://www.winog.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 5:03 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sales & Marketing of Unlicensed Wireless Services --Some Observations We have observed the following: It is easier to explain wireless after the fact then to sell wireless itself. In other words, we sell a service that provides X amount of internet access and Y phone lines that we just happen to deliver wirelessly. Once a customer is "sold" on the value of the service it is easy to explain the benefits of fixed wireless over copper. Our "T1" price is lower than the rest of the market, but it is easier and more profitable to sell 3Mbps at the market price of a T1 then to sell our lower priced "T1" service. All of the above means that while we are a seemingly large WISP, we don't have that many customers; our ARPU is just very high. -Matt Charles Wu wrote: >Generally, we end up debating all day and all night on the lists of >"what's the best radio" or "who's got those cool blue lights" -- >however, FWIW, I've noticed that there seldom is any debate on "useful" >topics like sales & marketing (especially of the product positioning of >license-exempt wireless) > >Do we call it wDSL? Wireless? More than Wifi? WiMAX? -- who knows? But >fuel the fire with a few observations > >- > >- > >ARPU is an acronym for the Average Revenue per User. This is the >average revenue factored across all customers as if each were charged >the same price >-- with some customers charged less and others more. Customer type usually >determines price. In addition, a Network Operator's valuation is a direct >multiple of its ARPU. > >The Marginal Recurring Cost (MRC) as compared to its Service Level / >Marginal Recurring Revenue (MRR) of delivering the following >license-exempt broadband wireless "WiMAX" connections have been >calculated as follows: > >Broadband "Lite" Residential Service >(512 / 512 Kb Burstable) >MRR: $24.95 >MRC: $20 > >Best Effort Residential Service >(5 Mb / 512 Kb Burstable) >MRR: $39.95 >MRC: $20 > >Best Effort Business Class Service >(5 Mb / 1 Mb Burstable) >MRR: $149.95 >MRC: $25 > >Dedicated Business Class Service >(5 Mb / 3 Mb Burstable) >(1 Mb / 1 Mb Dedicated) >MRR: $249.95 >MRC: $30 > >Dedicated Business SLA Service >(5 Mb / 3 Mb Burstable) >(3 Mb / 3 Mb Dedicated) >MRR: $449.95 >MRC: $40 > >Looking at the numbers, it's obvious that a higher ARPU increases the >overall health of the bottom line. > >Interestingly enough, all the following service plans are achieved >using the EXACT SAME license-exempt broadband wireless access >technology. So why is the differentiating factor that allows some >WISPs to sell that Canopy/Trango/Alvarion/whatever last mile connection >for $300+ month ARPU while other can barely get $30 / month ARPU? > >IT'S OBVIOUSLY MORE THAN "JUST" TECHNOLOGY... > >- > >- > >-Charles > >-- >WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Sales & Marketing of Unlicensed Wireless Services --SomeObservations
I desperately need a GOOD VOIP wholesale deal, where I own the customer and do frontline support, it's my own brand (if I brand it) and I merely bulk buy minutes, numbers, and CPE.I can't sell my customers a 400 minute account that costs me 25 bucks a month. They can buy Packet8 for less than most resell deals. You're thinking like the "ISP techie" -- e.g., if I'm not better / cheaper / faster...then I can't be in business Obviously, this isn't how things work Case in point -- I know of a market that consists of 2 Canopy WISPs -- the owners / principles of one come from a techie / residential ISP background, and sell wireless broadband connections (various rates of 1 Mb, 2 Mb, 3 Mb burstable connections) for $29-69 / month In the same market, the 2nd Canopy WISP has people who come from a carrier / enterprise sales background, and they sell the EXACT SAME WIRELESS CONNECTION (from a technological standpoint that is, it's still an unlicensed Motorola SM / AP) for $300-600 / month Now, it is worth noting that the guys in WISP #2 are 100 lbs overweight, have grey hair, and wear suits, while the guys in WISP #1 (although in their late 20s now) -- still resemble adolescent college fraternity kids However, when they first hit the market, I was thinking, jeez, these guys (WISP #2) are absolutely nuts, they're morons, trying to sell overpriced @#$@ -- they'll never turn on a customer Yet consistently, I see guys from WISP #2 outsell guys from WISP #1 in competitive deals (e.g., customer has a T1 line they're paying $500 / month for, and WISP #1 comes in and tries to sell a 3 Mb connection for $69 -- nothing happens -- 3 months later, WISP #2 comes in and sells a 3 Mb "dedicated" connection for $600 / month to the same customer) Go figure... -Charles --- WiNOG Austin, TX March 13-15, 2006 http://www.winog.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 5:09 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sales & Marketing of Unlicensed Wireless Services --SomeObservations Quote: "> IT'S OBVIOUSLY MORE THAN "JUST" TECHNOLOGY... " yes, it is. More to the point, it's about meeting your customer's needs or wants. Not shoving things at them they don't need or want, but genuinely discovering what it is that sparks them to buy in the first place. I'd rather just bundle a VOIP service in a higher level tier (let's move from 38 / mo to 55 or 60/mo ) of service, but needs to be affordable for me to do. Still, nobody's offering this kind of service, that I can find. Either it is sold as raw products (requiring me to build a whole VOIP system for my customers use) or as higher than retail priced "wholesale" programs. What I really need, then, is someone who does more of the backend stuff (including providing e911) but does so in mass quantity, and doesn't "touch" my customer. I've also found that pc service can be a good side venture, but I'm not convinced that we can actually compete on price with the computer store. If we're busy, it's better value for our time to install and support our own services. Just random thoughts on the topic... North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061 personal correspondence to: mark at neofast dot net sales inquiries to: purchasing at neofast dot net Fast Internet, NO WIRES! - - Original Message - From: "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Cc: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 2:45 PM Subject: [WISPA] Sales & Marketing of Unlicensed Wireless Services -- SomeObservations > Generally, we end up debating all day and all night on the lists of "what's > the best radio" or "who's got those cool blue lights" -- however, > FWIW, I've > noticed that there seldom is any debate on "useful" topics like sales > & marketing (especially of the product positioning of license-exempt wireless) > > Do we call it wDSL? Wireless? More than Wifi? WiMAX? -- who knows? But fuel > the fire with a few observations > > - > > - > > ARPU is an acronym for the Average Revenue per User. This is the > average revenue factored across all customers as if each were charged > the same price > -- with some customers charged less and others more. Customer type usually > determines price. In addition, a Network Operator's valuation is a > direct multiple of its ARPU. > > The Marginal Recurring Cost (MRC) as compared to its
RE: [WISPA] Sales & Marketing of Unlicensed Wireless Services --SomeObservations
Maybe you stumbled upon the fact that no one offers what you want because it isn't cost effective to do so. As much as we try to wholesale our VoIP offers to other WISPs, they want their cake and eat it too. Being an ISP or for that matter a VoIP provider requires either relying on others' infrastructure, making thin margins, and making it up in volume or building out your own infrastructure and making great margins. There really is no in-between. I know a lot of people out there who are willing to pay $30+ / month for a VoIP handset (in fact, my office has 40 handsets, and we still pay an outsourced VoIP provider $30 / month FOR EVERY SINGLE HANDSET -- then we get charged per minute local / long-distance rates) Another example A good friend of mine runs a colocation company in the Equinix IBX -- he charges $50 / month per U of rack space IBM, in a cage less than 50' away from him, charges $1k / month per U for rack space IBM has more colo'd servers than my friend Maybe you just aren't selling properly? -Charles --- WiNOG Austin, TX March 13-15, 2006 http://www.winog.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 5:26 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sales & Marketing of Unlicensed Wireless Services --SomeObservations Mark Koskenmaki wrote: >I'd rather just bundle a VOIP service in a higher level tier (let's >move from 38 / mo to 55 or 60/mo ) of service, but needs to be affordable for me >to do. Still, nobody's offering this kind of service, that I can find. >Either it is sold as raw products (requiring me to build a whole VOIP >system for my customers use) or as higher than retail priced >"wholesale" programs. > > > -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] WiNog
Jory Give me a call 773.326.4614 x534 and I'll try to work something out for you -Charles --- WiNOG Austin, TX March 13-15, 2006 http://www.winog.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jory Privett Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 11:57 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] WiNog Does anyone have a source for some passes that wont cost me $395. I will only be able to attend for one day Jory Privett WCCS -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] VoIP/PBX Gateway appliance - Beyond VoIP: Think Like a Cable Company and Accelerate ROI
Here's an interesting concept (so interesting, in fact, that we made a session about it at our next show) All wireless network operators today carry Internet advertising over their networks. All that network traffic equates to more than $14 billion dollars per year and is growing at double-digit rates every year. Yet, even though the network operator is responsible for connecting the "eyeball to the ad," they are left conspicuously on the sidelines when the advertising revenue checks are being handed out. John Wigboldus from Adzilla New Media will discuss how the wireless network operator needs to think and act like a cable television company to start earning revenue from advertisements that are being shown to their "viewers." More details at: http://www.winog.com Now sure exactly what they're about -- but IMO, it's an interesting thought (and I'm gonna try to make that session =) Btw, for those of you that can't make it -- don't fret, we DO post powerpoints after the show available for public download (but of course it's NEVER as good as actually being there =) -Charles --- WiNOG Austin, TX March 13-15, 2006 http://www.winog.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter R. Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 1:05 PM To: John Scrivner Cc: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP/PBX Gateway appliance Primus is a big International LD company. That is how it began in 1994. Check out the Primus Wireless plan. Cellular and VOIP are based in International exchanges. Primus has short term debt of $26M; long term is $635M. About to be de-listed from Nasdaq. Net loss for the fourth quarter 2005 was ($25) million (including a $13 million net loss from foreign currency transactions, a $4 million gain on early extinguishment of debt and $1 million in severance expense). Revenue growth was in wireless (MVNO), Covad re-sale, and International markets. Retail VOIP services grew modestly in the quarter to approximately 104,000 customers. This growth level reflects the fact that the Company continued to moderate its investment in LINGO in part due to the disruption in marketing activities raised by E911 regulations. Revenue from retail VOIP customers reached $8 million during the fourth quarter. John Scrivner wrote: > Primus tells me they are more than a VOIP company and that they do > make money. They impressed me in my dealings with them. Can you share > more about your information about Primus? I have a big interest in > knowing anything I can about them right now. > Thanks, > Scriv > > > Peter R. wrote: > >> You haven't seen it yet, because Lingo is not profitable yet. Primus >> owns Lingo and Primus is basically an International VOIP company. >> >> Like so many VOIP Providers, they are still trying to figure out how >> to make a profit. >> >> Delta3 (which is the backend for VZ's VoiceWing) made $9.1M in >> revenue in 4Q05 and just $22k in income. >> >> Vonage has a customer acquisition cost that is 20 times their MRC. >> >> Regards, >> >> Peter > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] VoIP/PBX Gateway appliance
I think everyone of us need to be in our own VoIP business!! I have even given thought to a Coop kind of deal, but I need to have some more beer and thoughts on that :-) Mac, You need some BEER -N- WIRELESS GEAR -Charles --- WiNOG Austin, TX March 13-15, 2006 http://www.winog.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] VoIP/PBX Gateway appliance
We pay between $0.002 to $0.005 per minute on average for domestic long distance. Matt, Out of curiosity...do you mean 2-5 cents per minute? Or 0.2 to 0.5 cents per minute? -Charles --- WiNOG Austin, TX March 13-15, 2006 http://www.winog.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 2:00 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP/PBX Gateway appliance The notion of avoiding toll costs by working with other WISPs sounds great in theory. From our standpoint, it would cost us more to connect to a single WISP than to pay our entire long distance bill. -Matt Mac Dearman wrote: > I agree with that bit of advice whole heartedly Matt! > > We are in the process of setting up our own VoIP solution as we > speak. I think that by the time that 100 of us WISPs get into our own > VoIP offerings we can allow access from the other WISPs PRI's...etc > for PSTN access to limit the amount of LD charges if their is availble > access from a fellow WISP...etc > > I think everyone of us need to be in our own VoIP business!! I have > even given thought to a Coop kind of deal, but I need to have some > more beer and thoughts on that :-) > > > Mac Dearman > Maximum Access, LLC. > Authorized Barracuda Reseller > MikroTik RouterOS Certified > www.inetsouth.com > www.mac-tel.us > www.RadioResponse.org (Katrina Relief) > Rayville, La. > 318.728.8600 > 318.303.4228 > 318.303.4229 > > > > > > - Original Message - From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 1:21 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP/PBX Gateway appliance > > >> In our case, the most expense part of our VoIP deployment was getting >> our network ready to support it correctly. Whether the backend is >> outsourced doesn't affect the requirement to support end-to-end QoS. >> Therefore, I believe that you should either get in all the way or not >> at all. >> >> The worst thing in the world you could do is bundle a 3rd party >> service that doesn't work very well and then because it is outsourced >> not be able to fix it. >> >> -Matt >> >> Tom DeReggi wrote: >> >>> MAtt, >>> >>> I agree with you on most of your comments. >>> However, there is more to it. >>> >>> Offering VOIP is not just about making money on it. Its about >>> controlling who has access to your subscribers, if one does not have >>> the time to be a VOIP provider themselves. >>> Bundling is a necessarily part of succeeding going in to the >>> future. Its more important that ever to outsource VOIP, if it will >>> likely never be a profitable business. let someone else loose the >>> money, and reap the rewards of bundling today. Give the companies >>> access to your clients that will be the lowest threat. >>> >>> What benefit is it to allow, Vonage, ATT, Comcast, Verizon access to >>> your client base, by allowing your subscribers to choose their VOIP >>> options? >>> >>> So Matt, I agree if the ISP/WISP intends to make significant money >>> on the service, build your own. But don't knock the >>> Primus/CommPartner models, they have their purpose and will enable >>> many WISPs/ISPs to have an option to offer, that don;t have the >>> resources to build their own. >>> >>> What this industry needs to recognize is that there are industry >>> trends that are going to gain market share, because consumers demand >>> them and are willing to buy. They don't care who makes or looses >>> money, they jsut know how to compare retail price they pay to the >>> quality the receive. JUst like Muni broadband, its a reality of >>> something that is going to happen. So my point is, pick the >>> companies that you want to help succeed, and which ones you want to >>> help NOT succeed, because some of them ARE going to succeed. >>> >>> Tom DeReggi >>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >>> >>> >>> - Original Message - From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: "WISPA General List" >>> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 1:09 PM >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP/PBX Gateway appliance >>> >>> Primus/Lingo is calling every WISP in the country trying to sign them up for a very CommPartners like deal. All of these VoIP providers are using the same shitty model that will be worthless in 2 years time. There is no money to be made in VoIP short-term unless you operate your own equipment. Long-term, there is no money to be made in VoIP at all. VoIP will soon be a loss leader; plan for it or do get into the VoIP business. BTW, Primus makes all their money on international termination. The domestic stuff is losing money hand over fist. -Matt John Scrivner wrote: > Primus tells me they are more than a VOIP company and that they do > make money. They impressed me in my dealings with them. Can y
RE: [WISPA] Adzilla & Revenue Streams
>What are the subs that I have to have to get a system like this??? >Jory Privett >WCCS Hi Jory, Are you coming to WiNOG? The people from Adzilla will be there, so you can meet them first-hand and talk with them directly -Charles --- WiNOG Austin, TX March 13-15, 2006 http://www.winog.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jory Privett Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 6:10 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Adzilla & Revenue Streams - Original Message - From: "Eric DaVersa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 5:34 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Adzilla & Revenue Streams The simple answer to that is "don't use that option." The ad optimization is transparent and its basically free money. I usually have to say it 3 times before ISPs start to understand the concept, so in the interest of saving time... It's free money, it's free money, and - you guessed it - it's still free money. Eric DaVersa Vice-President, Business Development NetLogix OFFICE: 858.764.1998 CELL: 858.245.6702 FAX: 858.764.1982 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 2:47 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Adzilla & Revenue Streams North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061 personal correspondence to: mark at neofast dot net sales inquiries to: purchasing at neofast dot net Fast Internet, NO WIRES! - - Original Message - From: "Eric DaVersa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 8:57 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Adzilla & Revenue Streams > > For a Network Operator, you have some incredible new tools as part of > the package. You have a GUI interface where you can insert messaging > DIRECT TO THE DESKTOP. This means, "Dear Customer, your payment is 7 > days past due, your account will be shut off if you do not pay within x > hours." I think if I tried that with my customers, I would be losing, not gaining, customers. The notion of inserting something into thier data is... too intrusive for me to consider. North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061 personal correspondence to: mark at neofast dot net sales inquiries to: purchasing at neofast dot net Fast Internet, NO WIRES! - -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] New revenue stream *THREAD CLOSED!*
Title: Message Like it or not, it is worth noting that p0rn accounts for a VAST OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of Internet traffic -Charles ---WiNOG Austin, TXMarch 13-15, 2006http://www.winog.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron WallaceSent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 10:05 PMTo: WISPA General ListSubject: Re: [WISPA] New revenue stream *THREAD CLOSED!* Rick, I can certainly understand that many among us are offended by the very mention of nudity on the internet, however, I do not understand why the topic in question cannot be discussed on the WISPA list. I understood the WISPA lists to be a forum of discussion to determine how 'members' felt about the activities of the FCC, and how we could have our interests represented, for example. Rick why is it 'not proper' for us to discuss the propriety of allowing nude web sites, or not allowing, based upon the free and open discussion of the precise impropriety of the question Mr. Huppenthal asked? I am a paid member, I do not allow, if I know, sexually explicit material on my system. Notwithstanding, I believe that an open discussion of the very issue Mr. Huppenthal raised might clear the air and set some valuable guidelines for us all. Ron Wallace Hahnron, Inc. 220 S. Jackson Dt. Addison, MI 49220 Phone: (517)547-8410 Mobile: (517)605-4542 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] >-Original Message->From: Rick Harnish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2006 09:35 PM>To: ''WISPA General List''>Subject: RE: [WISPA] New revenue stream *THREAD CLOSED!*>>Alex,>>Please take this offlist. This is not proper content for discussion on the>Wispa list servs.>>Respectfully, > >Rick Harnish>President>Supernova Technologies, Inc.>260-827-2482 Office>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Founding Member of WISPA >-Original Message->From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On>Behalf Of A. Huppenthal>Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 8:46 PM>To: WISPA General List>Subject: [WISPA] New revenue stream>>I have client who asked me if a tasteful nude picture web server would >be okay to deploy on the network.>>They are willing to pay 5 times the normal rate for co-location, plus >additional fees for high load times.>>When I called Qwest to find out about their policy they said they aren't >in the business of clensing the net or otherwise filtering content.>>Since this server is not one of the companies, I wonder what sort of >liability exists..>>It appears this is a huge source of revenue. In fact the same crew says >they want to provide DRM downloadable movies of the adult nature.>>Now I've watched with some interest, what the major hotel chains are >doing and how much pay per view adult movies add to their bottom line. I >don't think this is a simple - you know I don't like it myself - >answer. Its policy, revenue and finding the proper ground.>>Any experience with this?>>-- >WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org>>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless>>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/>>-- >WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org>>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless>>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/> -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] WiNOG AUSTIN TX - MARCH 13-15 - JOIN MOTOROLA FOR FREE ADVANCED CANOPY TRAINING ($995 VALUE)
Join us this month in Austin, TX at WiNOG, the premier forum for the exchange of technical information and discussion of specific implementation issues that organizations involved in the design, deployment and operation of wireless networks face on a daily basis. CPT300: ADVANCED CANOPY TECHNICAL TRAINING This one-day instructor-led course teaches advanced topics pertaining to Canopy systems. This course builds off the foundation established in the Canopy Technical Training course, covering both RF and IP topics in more depth. Hands-On Labs provide in-depth experience working with Canopy equipment (Access Point and Subscriber Modules). More info at: http://www.winog.com/austin_2006/sessions/day1_moto.htm FREE VIP EXPO / VENDOR SESSION PASS The WiNOG Expo Hall and Vendor Application Sessions feature the latest in broadband wireless, WiMAX, WiFi, Mesh and much more. WiNOG has gone beyond "just equipment" to include software, applications, entertainment and content. Attend Vendor Application Sessions to see how the latest technologies, demonstrations and technical presentations are designed to meet the substantial business and technology needs of today's network operator. Register NOW online at www.winog.com --- WiNOG Austin, TX March 13-15, 2006 http://www.winog.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Rodopi Vs. Platypus
Title: Message another WISP / ISP OSS vendor to check out is Airpath Wireless - www.airpath.com They come from the WiFi side, and are trying to do a few interesting things for fixed wireless ISPs (in respect to roaming ideas, etc) -Charles ---WiNOG Austin, TXMarch 13-15, 2006http://www.winog.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of G.VillariniSent: Friday, March 10, 2006 5:17 AMTo: 'WISPA General List'Subject: RE: [WISPA] Rodopi Vs. Platypus What are the hardware requierements? We are trying to choose between the soft pkg or the hosted application Gino A. Villarini, Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.aeronetpr.com 787.273.4143 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis JohnsonSent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 11:04 PMTo: WISPA General ListSubject: Re: [WISPA] Rodopi Vs. Platypus Hi,We have been running Rodopi for almost 8 years now. It works great and we have never had a problem.TravisMicroservG.Villarini wrote: Any info on the pro and cons of both billing platforms ? Gino A. Villarini, Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.aeronetpr.com 787.273.4143 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul options
>You don't need licensed to high throughput backhaul. For example, >Orthogon's Spectra provides 300Mbps aggregate at a price point generally >Less than 45Mbps licensed. Hi Matt, I am curious to see where / what you got those numbers for the Orthogon Spectra? -Charles --- WiNOG Austin, TX March 13-15, 2006 http://www.winog.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 1:28 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul options -Matt Bobby Burrow wrote: >I'm looking at moving to a licensed solution to increase throughput >across one of out backhaul links that spans 5 hops. Distances between >hops range anywhere from 7 to 19 miles. > >We are currently using the dual nstreme Mikrotik solution and it is >working very well, however the WRAP/RB532 solutions are only yielding >~25Mb per hop. > >Can anyone recommend a licensed radio manufacturer that should net us >50Mb-100Mb per hop? > >Thanks, > >Bobby Burrow >East Texas Rural Net >www.etxrn.com > > > > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul options
I'm looking at moving to a licensed solution to increase throughput across one of out backhaul links that spans 5 hops. Distances between hops range anywhere from 7 to 19 miles. Can anyone recommend a licensed radio manufacturer that should net us 50Mb-100Mb per hop? Hi Bobby, >From reading your post, I could surmise (to your detriment) that you missed the WiNOG conference in Austin last week. One licensed manufacturer was actually offering a show special for a FREE 100 Mb upgrade (e.g., buy the radio at the 50 Mb price but get a 100 Mb radio) to show attendees (this is worth thousands of dollars per link). That said, now that you've listened to my "snide remark" -- I'm actually going to provide some useful information (consider it the cost of free but useful advice =) To go 9-17 miles, you will have to use either the 6 or 11 GHz frequencies...FCC Part 101 stipulates a minimum dish size of 4' for 11 GHz, and 6' for 6 GHz -- the first question you must ask yourself is whether this doable for your towers/rooftops? Anyone who tells you that 18 GHz (which allows for a 2' dish size) will do the link for has no idea what they're talking about. I would recommend reading the following article put out by Broadband Wireless Magazine a few years ago helping WISPs understand Point-to-Point Licensed Links http://www.shorecliffcommunications.com/magazine/volume.asp?Vol=39&story=365 If you have any additional questions, feel free to ping me offlist -Charles --- WiNOG Austin, TX March 13-15, 2006 http://www.winog.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bobby Burrow Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 1:21 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul options I'm looking at moving to a licensed solution to increase throughput across one of out backhaul links that spans 5 hops. Distances between hops range anywhere from 7 to 19 miles. We are currently using the dual nstreme Mikrotik solution and it is working very well, however the WRAP/RB532 solutions are only yielding ~25Mb per hop. Can anyone recommend a licensed radio manufacturer that should net us 50Mb-100Mb per hop? Thanks, Bobby Burrow East Texas Rural Net www.etxrn.com -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.4/282 - Release Date: 3/15/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul options
But a Spectra WILL NOT DELIVER anything close to 300 Mbps of REAL TCP THROUGHPUT from 9-16 miles (not even half duplex) And that's even assuming 30 Mhz of clean spectrum (> +25 dB SNR) in BOTH V & H polarities -Charles --- WiNOG Austin, TX March 13-15, 2006 http://www.winog.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of G.Villarini Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 7:54 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul options Charles, Ill chime in here cause you can get a Spectra for $15 to $16k wheras a Licensed link goes from $20k and up... Gino A. Villarini, Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.aeronetpr.com 787.273.4143 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Wu Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 8:46 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul options >You don't need licensed to high throughput backhaul. For example, >Orthogon's Spectra provides 300Mbps aggregate at a price point generally >Less than 45Mbps licensed. Hi Matt, I am curious to see where / what you got those numbers for the Orthogon Spectra? -Charles --- WiNOG Austin, TX March 13-15, 2006 http://www.winog.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 1:28 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul options -Matt Bobby Burrow wrote: >I'm looking at moving to a licensed solution to increase throughput >across one of out backhaul links that spans 5 hops. Distances between >hops range anywhere from 7 to 19 miles. > >We are currently using the dual nstreme Mikrotik solution and it is >working very well, however the WRAP/RB532 solutions are only yielding >~25Mb per hop. > >Can anyone recommend a licensed radio manufacturer that should net us >50Mb-100Mb per hop? > >Thanks, > >Bobby Burrow >East Texas Rural Net >www.etxrn.com > > > > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul options
Title: Message but with 2' on the Spectra, you're likely only to get about 60 Mbps of REAL THROUGHPUT at 10+ miles =( -Charles ---WiNOG Austin, TXMarch 13-15, 2006http://www.winog.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of G.VillariniSent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 6:14 AMTo: 'WISPA General List'Subject: RE: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul options Tad less … wit 2 footers about $17k Gino A. Villarini, Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.aeronetpr.com 787.273.4143 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis JohnsonSent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 12:03 AMTo: WISPA General ListSubject: Re: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul options The Spectra would be around $20k with external antennas. A licensed product is going to be at least that, and probably $5k more.TravisMicroservCharles Wu wrote: You don't need licensed to high throughput backhaul. For example, Orthogon's Spectra provides 300Mbps aggregate at a price point generally Less than 45Mbps licensed. Hi Matt, I am curious to see where / what you got those numbers for the OrthogonSpectra? -Charles ---WiNOG Austin, TXMarch 13-15, 2006http://www.winog.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] OnBehalf Of Matt LiottaSent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 1:28 PMTo: WISPA General ListSubject: Re: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul options -Matt Bobby Burrow wrote: I'm looking at moving to a licensed solution to increase throughput across one of out backhaul links that spans 5 hops. Distances between hops range anywhere from 7 to 19 miles. We are currently using the dual nstreme Mikrotik solution and it is working very well, however the WRAP/RB532 solutions are only yielding ~25Mb per hop. Can anyone recommend a licensed radio manufacturer that should net us 50Mb-100Mb per hop? Thanks, Bobby BurrowEast Texas Rural Netwww.etxrn.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul options
Title: Message >The Spectra would be around $20k with external antennas. A licensed product is going to be at least that, and probably $5k more. Sit back and actually think for a second about this comparison, and you'll realize that a similarly performing "unlicensed" solution will cost MUCH MORE (and be much riskier) relative to the licensed solution The main difference is that the spectra requires 30 Mhz of ABSOLUTELY CLEAN SPECTRUM in both the vertical and horizontal polarities (150 Mb "Air Rate" transmits on V-pol & 150 Mb "Air Rate" transmits on H-pol -- cut off 1 polarity, you halve throughput) In addition, the Rx sensitivity of the Spectra at the 300 Mb data rate (256 QAM) is -59 dB with an output power of +18 (so you'll need HUGE dishes to guarantee the link budget) So, lets do a "theoretical" path calc / comparison (15 miles) 11 Ghz Licensed Link (100 Mb Full Duplex) Rx Sensitivity: -76 dBm Tx Power: +21 dBm 4' Dish: +39 dBi Expected RSSI: -42.9 (>30 dB of fade margin = ROCK SOLID LINK =) 5 GHz Spectra Rx Sensitivity: -59 dB Tx Power: +18 6' Dish: +34 dBi Expected RSSI: -49.4 (~10 dB of fade margin w/ 2' more of each dish) Then there's all sort of "real-world" performance issues that occur with higher-order modulation schemes and license-exempt operation -Charles ---WiNOG Austin, TXMarch 13-15, 2006http://www.winog.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis JohnsonSent: Friday, March 17, 2006 10:03 PMTo: WISPA General ListSubject: Re: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul optionsTravisMicroservCharles Wu wrote: You don't need licensed to high throughput backhaul. For example, Orthogon's Spectra provides 300Mbps aggregate at a price point generally Less than 45Mbps licensed. Hi Matt, I am curious to see where / what you got those numbers for the Orthogon Spectra? -Charles --- WiNOG Austin, TX March 13-15, 2006 http://www.winog.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 1:28 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul options -Matt Bobby Burrow wrote: I'm looking at moving to a licensed solution to increase throughput across one of out backhaul links that spans 5 hops. Distances between hops range anywhere from 7 to 19 miles. We are currently using the dual nstreme Mikrotik solution and it is working very well, however the WRAP/RB532 solutions are only yielding ~25Mb per hop. Can anyone recommend a licensed radio manufacturer that should net us 50Mb-100Mb per hop? Thanks, Bobby Burrow East Texas Rural Net www.etxrn.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul options
Title: Message Charles, Your point is well demonstrated, except >6' Dish: +34 dBi Not sure what dishes you are talking about, You can get 34 dbi out of an Andrews 3 footer. With 6 foot you should be able to get > 37 dbi. Lol -- you're right after not sleeping for a week -- I guess I'm allowed to make a mistake -Charles ---WiNOG Austin, TXMarch 13-15, 2006http://www.winog.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggiSent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 6:10 PMTo: WISPA General ListSubject: Re: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul options Tom DeReggiRapidDSL & Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Charles Wu To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 5:25 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul options >The Spectra would be around $20k with external antennas. A licensed product is going to be at least that, and probably $5k more. Sit back and actually think for a second about this comparison, and you'll realize that a similarly performing "unlicensed" solution will cost MUCH MORE (and be much riskier) relative to the licensed solution The main difference is that the spectra requires 30 Mhz of ABSOLUTELY CLEAN SPECTRUM in both the vertical and horizontal polarities (150 Mb "Air Rate" transmits on V-pol & 150 Mb "Air Rate" transmits on H-pol -- cut off 1 polarity, you halve throughput) In addition, the Rx sensitivity of the Spectra at the 300 Mb data rate (256 QAM) is -59 dB with an output power of +18 (so you'll need HUGE dishes to guarantee the link budget) So, lets do a "theoretical" path calc / comparison (15 miles) 11 Ghz Licensed Link (100 Mb Full Duplex) Rx Sensitivity: -76 dBm Tx Power: +21 dBm 4' Dish: +39 dBi Expected RSSI: -42.9 (>30 dB of fade margin = ROCK SOLID LINK =) 5 GHz Spectra Rx Sensitivity: -59 dB Tx Power: +18 6' Dish: +34 dBi Expected RSSI: -49.4 (~10 dB of fade margin w/ 2' more of each dish) Then there's all sort of "real-world" performance issues that occur with higher-order modulation schemes and license-exempt operation -Charles ---WiNOG Austin, TXMarch 13-15, 2006http://www.winog.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis JohnsonSent: Friday, March 17, 2006 10:03 PMTo: WISPA General ListSubject: Re: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul optionsTravisMicroservCharles Wu wrote: You don't need licensed to high throughput backhaul. For example, Orthogon's Spectra provides 300Mbps aggregate at a price point generally Less than 45Mbps licensed. Hi Matt, I am curious to see where / what you got those numbers for the Orthogon Spectra? -Charles --- WiNOG Austin, TX March 13-15, 2006 http://www.winog.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 1:28 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul options -Matt Bobby Burrow wrote: I'm looking at moving to a licensed solution to increase throughput across one of out backhaul links that spans 5 hops. Distances between hops range anywhere from 7 to 19 miles. We are currently using the dual nstreme Mikrotik solution and it is working very well, however the WRAP/RB532 solutions are only yielding ~25Mb per hop. Can anyone recommend a licensed radio manufacturer that should net us 50Mb-100Mb per hop? Thanks, Bobby Burrow East Texas Rural Net www.etxrn.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul options
Title: Message Charles you make a good point, but I’m going to throw a “but” in here: but the Orthogon / Canopy 300 radio’s will run also run at: 64 QAM .92 dual -62 receive sensitivity +18 output (252.9 throughput) 64 QAM .75 dual -68 receive sensitivity +18 output (206.7 throughput) 16 QAM .87 dual -71 receive sensitivity +20 output (160.8 throughput) In an attenuated lab setup, running TCP (w/ Iperf), we see the following results with the Spectra @ the 300 Mbps data rate 1 Way TCP Max: 143 Mbps 2 Way BiDirectional TCP Max: 98.1 / 105 Mbps Based on this data (and adding in timing degradation that a link would sustain when traveling over a longer distance), in order to acheive true "wire-speed" full-duplex 100 Mb Ethernet on the radio, I would guess that you would need to maintain the full-order modulation in order to keep the "apples-to-apples" comparison with a licensed 100 Mb radio link (e.g., Ceragon, Dragonwave, MNI). Full list can be found in the release notes and if you do the math on those modulations you can get some very good performance. I do agree with you that the licensed links would make more sense, but hanging 4 foot dishes on towers becomes a very expensive task or if you have to do a non-penetrating roof mount skid, the cost difference between the sleds is big. So we have to take in more than the cost of the radio’s, licenses, leases and dishes but put together the total cost because if you are hanging BIG dishes you’re going to dig deeper into your pocket. if he has clean spectrum to "spare" and doesn't need full 100 Mb wire speed performance, than the Spectra does make more economical sense -- but I would argue that you would need similarly (if not larger) sized dishes on the Spectra (4' & 6' dishes) due to 5 GHz spectrum congestion "risks" and the need/desire to minimize Rf beamwidths -Charles -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dustin JurmanSent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 5:47 PMTo: 'WISPA General List'Subject: RE: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul options Dustin Jurman From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles WuSent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 5:26 PMTo: 'WISPA General List'Subject: RE: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul options >The Spectra would be around $20k with external antennas. A licensed product is going to be at least that, and probably $5k more. Sit back and actually think for a second about this comparison, and you'll realize that a similarly performing "unlicensed" solution will cost MUCH MORE (and be much riskier) relative to the licensed solution The main difference is that the spectra requires 30 Mhz of ABSOLUTELY CLEAN SPECTRUM in both the vertical and horizontal polarities (150 Mb "Air Rate" transmits on V-pol & 150 Mb "Air Rate" transmits on H-pol -- cut off 1 polarity, you halve throughput) In addition, the Rx sensitivity of the Spectra at the 300 Mb data rate (256 QAM) is -59 dB with an output power of +18 (so you'll need HUGE dishes to guarantee the link budget) So, lets do a "theoretical" path calc / comparison (15 miles) 11 Ghz Licensed Link (100 Mb Full Duplex) Rx Sensitivity: -76 dBm Tx Power: +21 dBm 4' Dish: +39 dBi Expected RSSI: -42.9 (>30 dB of fade margin = ROCK SOLID LINK =) 5 GHz Spectra Rx Sensitivity: -59 dB Tx Power: +18 6' Dish: +34 dBi Expected RSSI: -49.4 (~10 dB of fade margin w/ 2' more of each dish) Then there's all sort of "real-world" performance issues that occur with higher-order modulation schemes and license-exempt operation -Charles ---WiNOG Austin, TXMarch 13-15, 2006http://www.winog.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis JohnsonSent: Friday, March 17, 2006 10:03 PMTo: WISPA General ListSubject: Re: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul options TravisMicroservCharles Wu wrote: You don't need licensed to high throughput backhaul. For example, Orthogon's Spectra provides 300Mbps aggregate at a price point generally Less than 45Mbps licensed. Hi Matt, I am curious to see where / what you got those numbers for the OrthogonSpectra? -Charles ---WiNOG Austin, TXMarch 13-15, 2006http://www.winog.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] OnBehalf Of Matt LiottaSent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 1:28 PMTo: WISPA General ListSubject: Re: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul options -Matt Bobby Burrow wrote: I'm looking at moving to a licensed so
RE: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul options
We are running FreeBSD boxes w/ Gigabit Ethernet NICs I don't know all the details, since I'm not the technical guy running the tests, but I believe we are using "standard" 1500-byte packets w/ standard MTUs, etc On a 100 Mb FastE link (benchmark) we get the following 1 Way TCP Max: 94.0 Mbps 2 Way BiDirectional TCP Max: 92.7 / 92.4 Mbps On a GiGE link, due to Linux kernal processing issues, we max out at about 400 Mbps of "raw" TCP throughput -Charles -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 11:49 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul options Charles Wu wrote: > In an attenuated lab setup, running TCP (w/ Iperf), we see the > following results with the Spectra @ the 300 Mbps data rate > > > > 1 Way TCP Max: 143 Mbps > > 2 Way BiDirectional TCP Max: 98.1 / 105 Mbps > > What TCP settings did you use to achieve the above? -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul options
Hi Matt, To answer your questions from my relatively "limited" sales & marketing point of view >RFC 2018 SACK Yes it is enabled -- if you purchase a copy of our report, it shows the exact system parameters configured on the box (basically, >sysctl -a | grep tcp) >RFC 896 Nagle Can you please explain how this is applicable in modern-day implementations of TCP? From my limited understanding, Nagle is a relic of the past (been replaced by TCP Westwood, etc) >RFC 3168 ECN Yes, the bit is turned on, but can you please explain how this is applicable for a transparent layer-2 bridging scenario? >RFC 1323 TCP Extensions for High Performance Yes -Charles --- WiNOG Austin, TX March 13-15, 2006 http://www.winog.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Un- licensed WIMAX?
Alvarion VL is based on a WiFi chipset (this isn't meant to knock Alvarion, since almost every 5 GHz PtMP WISP manufacturered product out there is also based on a similar chipset) Alvarion BreezeMAX (they're product pending WiMAX certification) doesn't operate in 5 GHz -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pete Davis Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 6:42 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Un- licensed WIMAX? I thought Alvarion was Wimax, or wimax-able, or wimax compatible, or software-flashable to wimax. Wimax-ilicious, or something. pd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > George > > >From what we have seen most of the unlicensed WIMAX will come into > >its own > in the first half of 2007. The limitation for low cost units comes > down to the chipsets, we have tested prototype mini-pci WIMAX radios > (5Ghz) but they are far from ready for prime time. > > Sincerely, Tony Morella > Demarc Technology Group, A Wireless Solution Provider > Office: 207-667-7583 Fax: 207-433-1008 http://www.demarctech.com > > This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the > meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510, and > its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the > sender of this message. This communication may contain confidential > and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient and > receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient does not > constitute a loss of the confidential or privileged nature of the > communication. Any review or distribution by others is strictly > prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the > sender by return electronic mail and delete all copies of this > communication > > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of George > Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 11:17 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: [WISPA] Un- licensed WIMAX? > > What is going on with unlicensed WIMAX? > Is there any products released yet or about to be released? Thanks > George > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
Higher ARPU WISPs in the business are selling their services as WiMAX -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of KyWiFi LLC Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 10:56 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband I'm noticing more and more WISP's selling their wireless broadband service as "DSL" or "Wireless DSL". I know that 75% of the people who call our sales number have a difficult time understanding what Wireless Broadband is. They already know what DSL is and that is what the majority of them ask for so I would be interested in hearing everyone's opinions on the pros and cons of a WISP labeling their wireless broadband service as "DSL, wDSL or Wireless DSL" instead of "Fixed Wireless, WiFI or Wireless Broadband". If the masses are more familiar with the term DSL then I think we would generate more sales leads by advertising our (WISPs') broadband as DSL instead of Wireless Broadband. I'm sure the local telco would just love to see all of us selling "DSL". Are there any legalities to this? Does wireless broadband qualify as DSL or a form of DSL in the eyes of the law? Is it legal for a WISP to sell their wireless broadband service as DSL? Sincerely, Shannon D. Denniston, Co-Founder KyWiFi, LLC - Mt. Sterling, Kentucky http://www.KyWiFi.com http://www.KyWiFiVoice.com Phone: 859.274.4033 A Broadband Phone & Internet Provider == Wireless Broadband, Local Calling and UNLIMITED Long Distance only $69! No Taxes, No Regulatory Fees, No Hassles FREE Site Survey: http://www.KyWiFi.com == -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Un- licensed WIMAX?
That is correct, however those companies are expected to be shipping product ( and are taking pre orders ) that will comply with the testing whenever the gods at wimaxforum decide to get off their collective arses and certify 5.8. Airspan for example, already has wimax 4.9 product and is getting FCC certification. So in conclusion, yes on product, no on the interop profile or tests yet. Basically, a roadmap to WiMAX? Look at the result of Wi-LAN's Continuty Program & Roadmap to WiMAX? > Wi-LAN Continuity Program > The Wi-LAN Continuity Program Provides - Standards Based W-OFDM Performance Today - Clear Path to the Standards - Risk Free Migration Strategy - Investment Protection - Proven Future Proof Solution History shows that when new standards are created then there is a lot of buzz and expection and a lot of marketing noise about standards based products being available "soon." Again, history has shown that "soon" is often delayed until "later" or "much later." High expectations turn into dissapointment and frustration. The Continuity Program shows Wi-LAN's clear path to the standards. Customers can purchase Libra products today and be confident that their investment will be protected when WiMAX products become available > Oh Really? February 2, 2006 Wi-LAN Inc. is transitioning out of its broadband wireless equipment business to concentrate solely on its intellectual property rights business. So -- this leads one to ask -- how "guaranteed" is a roadmap to WiMAX? -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 11:38 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Un- licensed WIMAX? - Jeff On Apr 4, 2006, at 7:06 PM, Steve Stroh wrote: > > Neat trick... considering... > > There is not yet a WiMAX 5.8 GHz interoperability profile. Because > there is not yet a WiMAX 5.8 GHz WiMAX interoperability > profile, there have not yet been any 5.8 GHz interoperability tests. > Because there has not yet been any WiMAX 5.8 GHz interoperability > tests, there cannot be any WiMAX 5.8 GHz products certified as > having completed the tests and declared interoperable. > > And, unless a product has been through the interoperability tests > and declared interoperable, it cannot use the WiMAX brand name. > > Nope - no _5.8 GHz_ (license-exempt is assumed) WiMAX products. > PERHAPS by year end... but I suspect it will be longer given that > the vendors are going to be VERY busy selling all the 3.5 GHz > (licensed, non-US markets) gear they can make AND getting Mobile > WiMAX out will consume the available interoperability testing > facilities and the attentions of the Mobile portions of the WiMAX > industry. > > 5.8 GHz WiMAX is kind of an afterthought at the moment for the > WiMAX industry. > > > Thanks, > > Steve > > > On Apr 4, 2006, at 11:37, jeffrey thomas wrote: > >> George, >> >> Yes there is. Airspan and Aperto both have products and are taking >> orders now. >> >> - >> >> Jeff >> >> On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 08:16:46 -0700, "George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> said: >>> What is going on with unlicensed WIMAX? >>> Is there any products released yet or about to be released? >>> Thanks >>> George > > --- > > Steve Stroh > 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Un- licensed WIMAX?
Hi Jeff, Out of curiosity, since QoS & "base" WiMAX certification currently are mutually exclusive, how does having QoS allow one manufacturer to have product that's "more WiMAX" than another (not to say that QoS makes a product better, but that's a whole different argument) -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 11:35 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Un- licensed WIMAX? George, I am sure there will be others, but likely the first will be Airspan ( May is Beta ) and Aperto ( shipping in June ). Redline likely will have product as well, but based on the fact that both Aperto and Airspan have considerable experience with QOS PTMP, I would think they will have the only great product out there. As well, on the CPE front, there are a number of taiwanese ODM's expected to announce sub 300 dollar integrated CPE. - Jeff On Apr 4, 2006, at 5:28 PM, George wrote: > Ok, so far Jeff is the only one to say that unlicended Wimax will > be available with Aperto and Airspan. > > What do you know Charles? > > George > > Charles Wu wrote: >> Alvarion VL is based on a WiFi chipset (this isn't meant to knock >> Alvarion, >> since almost every 5 GHz PtMP WISP manufacturered product out >> there is also >> based on a similar chipset) >> Alvarion BreezeMAX (they're product pending WiMAX certification) >> doesn't >> operate in 5 GHz >> -Charles >> --- >> CWLab >> Technology Architects >> http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:wireless- >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Pete Davis >> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 6:42 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Un- licensed WIMAX? >> I thought Alvarion was Wimax, or wimax-able, or wimax compatible, >> or software-flashable to wimax. Wimax-ilicious, or something. >> pd >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> George >>> >>>> From what we have seen most of the unlicensed WIMAX will come into >>> >>>> its own >>> >>> in the first half of 2007. The limitation for low cost units >>> comes down to the chipsets, we have tested prototype mini-pci >>> WIMAX radios (5Ghz) but they are far from ready for prime time. >>> >>> Sincerely, Tony Morella >>> Demarc Technology Group, A Wireless Solution Provider >>> Office: 207-667-7583 Fax: 207-433-1008 http://www.demarctech.com >>> This communication constitutes an electronic communication within >>> the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC >>> 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient >>> intended by the sender of this message. This communication may >>> contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of >>> the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the >>> intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the confidential >>> or privileged nature of the communication. Any review or >>> distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the >>> intended recipient please contact the sender by return electronic >>> mail and delete all copies of this communication >>> >>> >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:wireless- >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George >>> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 11:17 AM >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: [WISPA] Un- licensed WIMAX? >>> >>> What is going on with unlicensed WIMAX? >>> Is there any products released yet or about to be released? Thanks >>> George >>> -- >>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>> >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ >>> wireless >>> >>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>> >>> > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Un- licensed WIMAX?
There is no such thing right now as unlicensed WiMAX (e.g., no way today to officially certify 5.8 Ghz WiMAX) So you *could* say that Motorola, Alvarion, Trango, Tranzeo, Mikrotik, StarOS, etc all have "roadmaps to WiMAX" just like Airspan & Aperto -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 7:29 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Un- licensed WIMAX? Ok, so far Jeff is the only one to say that unlicended Wimax will be available with Aperto and Airspan. What do you know Charles? George Charles Wu wrote: > Alvarion VL is based on a WiFi chipset (this isn't meant to knock > Alvarion, since almost every 5 GHz PtMP WISP manufacturered product > out there is also based on a similar chipset) > > Alvarion BreezeMAX (they're product pending WiMAX certification) > doesn't operate in 5 GHz > > -Charles > > --- > CWLab > Technology Architects > http://www.cwlab.com > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Pete Davis > Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 6:42 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Un- licensed WIMAX? > > > I thought Alvarion was Wimax, or wimax-able, or wimax compatible, or > software-flashable to wimax. Wimax-ilicious, or something. > > pd > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>George >> >>>From what we have seen most of the unlicensed WIMAX will come into >> >>>its own >> >>in the first half of 2007. The limitation for low cost units comes >>down to the chipsets, we have tested prototype mini-pci WIMAX radios >>(5Ghz) but they are far from ready for prime time. >> >>Sincerely, Tony Morella >>Demarc Technology Group, A Wireless Solution Provider >>Office: 207-667-7583 Fax: 207-433-1008 http://www.demarctech.com >> >>This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the >>meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510, and >>its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the >>sender of this message. This communication may contain confidential >>and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient and >>receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient does not >>constitute a loss of the confidential or privileged nature of the >>communication. Any review or distribution by others is strictly >>prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the >>sender by return electronic mail and delete all copies of this >>communication >> >> >> >> >>-Original Message- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>On Behalf Of George >>Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 11:17 AM >>To: WISPA General List >>Subject: [WISPA] Un- licensed WIMAX? >> >>What is going on with unlicensed WIMAX? >>Is there any products released yet or about to be released? Thanks >>George >>-- >>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >>Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> > > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
Maybe we should be branding our service as "Wi-Fiber". or Maybe "Ethernet Internet Access" (of course like end users will know what Ethernet means.) Spend trying to build a new brand around Wi-Fiber or just ride Intel / WiMAX Forum's Marketing machine... Here's the thing, chances are, whatever name you choose to "brand" this technology, the customer will probably be ignorant (it's still a "new" technology, eh?) However, when talking to them, and saying something like "just google WiMAX to learn about our technology" -- they'll see hundreds (if not thousands) of entries from reputable business magazines (from INC to Business Week to Fortune) all talking about how WiMAX is better than WiFi & Cellular and how it can compete against T1s, they'll go "ah-hah" Not to be offensive here, but most WISPs don't know @[EMAIL PROTECTED] about sales & marketing - Just remember, it takes about 8 "touches" to effectively sell a medium ARPU ($200-600 / month) data account -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
Motorola designed Canopy specifically for the WISP market, not the carrier market. Alvarion designed VL specifically for the carrier market, not the WISP market. Ah, the "mis-perceptions" of the "rugged" metal enclosure =) Steve, can you please explain why carriers would prefer a CSMA/CA over a scheduled (WiMAX-like) MAC? Thanks -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Stroh Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 11:05 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP Thanks, Steve On Apr 11, 2006, at 18:55, Dylan Oliver wrote: > How is any product qualified as 'Carrier-Grade'? What is it about > Alvarion VL that makes the cut vs. Canopy? Lord knows Motorola > produces far more 'Carrier-Grade' equipment than Alvarion ever will - > so where did they go wrong with Canopy? > > Also, I've heard lately several complaints that Waverider has trouble > sustaining even 1 Mbps throughput ... what is your experience, John? > > Best, > -- > Dylan Oliver > Primaverity, LLC-- --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Anybody played with this gear?
The guy I spoke with on the phone (I did not get his name) told me that these units are shipping now. Hrm... The guy I spoke with said that the FCC certs are pending approval and that the unit is being tested for approval now. Egads... -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
>And to add version 4.0 changes the rules again. Stay tuned. Brad Hi Brad, That statement has piqued my curiosity Care to elaborate? (on or offlist) -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Larson Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 8:12 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP -Original Message- From: Jeffrey Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 2:44 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP agreed, VL is far from carrier grade On Apr 12, 2006, at 9:16 AM, Charles Wu wrote: > > Motorola designed Canopy specifically for the WISP market, not the > carrier market. > > Alvarion designed VL specifically for the carrier market, not the WISP > market. > > Ah, the "mis-perceptions" of the "rugged" metal enclosure =) > > Steve, can you please explain why carriers would prefer a CSMA/CA > over a > scheduled (WiMAX-like) MAC? > > Thanks > > -Charles > > --- > CWLab > Technology Architects > http://www.cwlab.com > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:wireless- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Steve Stroh > Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 11:05 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP > > > > > > > Thanks, > > Steve > > On Apr 11, 2006, at 18:55, Dylan Oliver wrote: > >> How is any product qualified as 'Carrier-Grade'? What is it about >> Alvarion VL that makes the cut vs. Canopy? Lord knows Motorola >> produces far more 'Carrier-Grade' equipment than Alvarion ever will - >> so where did they go wrong with Canopy? >> >> Also, I've heard lately several complaints that Waverider has >> trouble >> sustaining even 1 Mbps throughput ... what is your experience, John? >> >> Best, >> -- >> Dylan Oliver >> Primaverity, LLC-- > > --- > > Steve Stroh > 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ > wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Quick note of hello
Title: Message Hi Patrick, I had an interesting discussion with an Alvarion rep at WiNOG who implied that Alvarion is reevaluating its position towards and is showing greater interest again in the license-exempt service provider market This confirms that rumor =) Good to see you back -Charles ---CWLabTechnology Architectshttp://www.cwlab.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick LearySent: Monday, April 17, 2006 11:17 AMTo: 'WISPA General List'Subject: [WISPA] Quick note of hello Hi all, I just wanted to drop you guys a note that I have re-subscribed after being off the list for maybe two years. Hope all is well. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 Skype: pleary -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Service in Willis, OK
Does anyone provide coverage in Willis, OK -- have a business account lead (contact offlist) -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 12:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Universal Service Fund Here's what I wrote up on USF. Several felt it's got some errors that need fixing. Feel free to fix this, toss it and start over. Anything at all. But right now, officially, we're doing NOTHING. And that must change guys. Someone needs to come up with a position paper for WISPA to work from. Right now I've got some access to some in congress and I think we should work with that! laters, Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 10:25 AM Subject: [WISPA] Universal Service Fund > Marlon has been asking us for a while to give him feedback on > Universal > Service. We have not helped him as much as we should have. He asked for > input from the WISPA membership originally. I am asking everyone, members > or not, if you can help. Marlon has been asked by a member of the House > Commerce Committee (One of his Reps in Washington) to help them structure > legislation toward the re-working on the Universal Service Program. > Thoughts on the Hill are now leaning toward making it available to > multiple operators in a market and opening it to aid in broadband as well > as telco. > > The feeling from most WISPs is two things to date. Most think the > government should make Universal Service just go away. I share some of > that feeling myself. What should be known though is that government rarely > makes things go away. They usually want a role. With that said we need to > give them ideas on how to make this program help us in our goal to bring > broadband into underserved and/or unserved areas. > > To do this we need to understand what the program does, what was its > history, how it works and how it does not work. We need to develop a > strong strategy for dealing with Universal Service and offer a position > that legislators can feel good about and that helps show we are serious > about helping in legislative issues. I welcome feedback from anyone with > information which can help us develop this position. We need to act soon > as the legislature is wanting to do something now. Please help us mold our > future through this important effort. Your thoughts and knowledge are > needed. > > Input from anyone with knowledge of Universal Service would be helpful > at > this time. What we do not need is an argument that we should just tell > them to make it go away. We know that is what many of you want. In lieu of > it going away we need to know how it can be made to help us. > Thank you, > Scriv > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] [Fwd: Illinois' broadband gap squeezes small businessfrom Crain's]
FWIW -- there is a WISP in contact with the Lt Governor's Office and Crain's about servicing this customer (they have a tower ~ 4 miles from the physical location) -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pete Davis Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 8:40 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Fwd: Illinois' broadband gap squeezes small businessfrom Crain's] He must share a t1 with 12 other tenants and its barely faster than dialup? If I had to buy a t1 for every 12 broadband subscribers, I would go broke! Someone needs to manage that t1 or clean viruses on 13 computers, or something.. pd John Scrivner wrote: > Can someone in the Chicago area please serve this guy? If you get him > a wireless connection please let me know and I will have a press > release prepared and sent out. > Thanks, > Scriv > > PS. If you are in Illinois and have not done so yet, please join the > [EMAIL PROTECTED] email list server for Illinois specific > information. http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/illinois > > > Original Message > Subject: Illinois' broadband gap squeezes small business from Crain's > Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 10:18:16 -0500 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >> From Crain's > Illinois' broadband gap squeezes small business > By Julie Johnsson > April 16, 2006 > Even the cheapest DSL service is out of Steve Zaransky's reach. > > The line providing high-speed Internet access from AT&T Inc. stops 600 > yards short of his company, Airways Digital Media. Comcast Corp. > doesn't serve his neighborhood, an industrial corridor on the city's > Far Northwest Side. > Broadband remains elusive for some Chicagoans living or working in > industrial areas - as Mr. Zaransky learned when he moved his > three-employee Web development firm from the West Loop last summer. "I > just assumed that anywhere in the city, you'd be able to get > broadband," he says. > > That's not the case. Illinois ranks 21st nationally for broadband > lines per capita, trailing California, Massachusetts and even sparsely > populated Nevada and Alaska. In a world of instant information, that's > a serious disadvantage for small business owners like Mr. Zaransky, > who can't afford the T-1 lines larger companies use to tap into the > Internet. > > "It creates a struggle to do business here, rather than making it > simple. It doesn't bode well for economic development," says Janita > Tucker, executive director of the Peterson Pulaski Business and > Industrial Council, which represents 22 businesses employing about > 2,000 people in the industrial corridor including Mr. Zaransky's > business. Most of them don't have access to digital subscriber line > (DSL) or cable modem service, she says. > > That's ironic in a city that boasts one of the richest fiber networks > in the country. Illinois had 1.85 million high-speed Internet lines as > of June 30, the fifth-highest total of any state, according to new > Federal Communications Commission data. Much of that broadband is > clustered in downtown Chicago, a major Internet hub. > > However, gaps in the network are a problem elsewhere, leaving Illinois > with one broadband connection for every 6.70 residents, according to > an analysis by Crain's that compared the FCC tally of broadband lines > to population figures from the 2000 U.S. Census. The District of > Columbia and Connecticut, with the best coverage nationally, have > broadband connections for every 4.52 and 4.97 residents, respectively. > > "We do have large areas of the city and many suburban areas that don't > have basic broadband availability," says Scott Goldstein, > vice-president for policy and planning at the Metropolitan Planning > Council. "All sectors of the economy are going high-tech, not just > large companies. That's where Chicago needs to compete." > > The problem is a hangover from the 1990s, when Chicago's dominant > phone and cable companies were slow to upgrade networks that were > later acquired by AT&T (formerly known as SBC Communications Inc.) and > Comcast. > > NO RESIDENCES, NO COVERAGE > > Philadelphia cable giant Comcast has made cable modem available to > about 99% of homes in its Northern Illinois service area, but it > doesn't provide service to office parks and industrial areas where > there are no residences, a spokeswoman says. DSL service, provided by > phone companies, reached only 77% of Illinois phone customers as of > June 30, 2005, according to federal data. > > In Florida, the state with the widest DSL availability, some 85% of > customers could hook into the service as of mid-2005. New York's DSL > network reached 81% of the state. > > An AT&T spokesman says 80% of its Illinois customers had access to DSL > by the end of 2005. He can't say when the company's DSL coverage will > ap
RE: [WISPA] Charles Wu email ?
Title: Message [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---CWLabTechnology Architectshttp://www.cwlab.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gino A. VillariniSent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 10:32 AMTo: 'WISPA General List'Subject: [WISPA] Charles Wu email ? Charles whats you email, I lost my drive… new laptop… Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Tranzeo BH
Title: Message Here is one possible source for the information that you are looking for http://www.cwlab.com/testing_criteria.htm -Charles ---CWLabTechnology Architectshttp://www.cwlab.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of chris cooperSent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 1:35 PMTo: 'WISPA General List'Subject: [WISPA] Tranzeo BH Has anyone had any experience = or – with the Tranzeo 5a 32 or the 5amp 32? The claims are 25 and 40 miles respectively. Im wondering about reliability and performance at those distances. Hit me off list if you can advise. Thanks, Chris -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
Take that "article/session" with a grain of salt -- as it is being run by an organization that is supported by vendors trying to *sell* the concept of muni-wifi -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter R. Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 8:03 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes Free Municipal Wi-Fi Service Boosts Economic Development in the City of St. Cloud, FL at http://www.digitalcityexpo.com/agenda.htm -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Auction 66
Title: Message yes -- it's targeted towards 3G (mobile data) services not trying to sound snotty here -- but chances are, you're going to have a hard time bidding on spectrum directly against verizon / cingular / etc -Charles ---CWLabTechnology Architectshttp://www.cwlab.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve SmithSent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 4:26 PMTo: 'WISPA General List'Subject: [WISPA] Auction 66 http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auction_summary&id=66 Can anyone tell me anything about this auction? Steve Smith Chase 3000 Imperial, NE 69033 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 308 882-3000 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Business Value
One thing to remember -- when buying and selling a business (or anything for the matter) there has to be benefits on both sides (e.g., a win-win solution) Just as you are trying to maximize all your time and effort put into your company, the buyer needs to be able to see a light at the end of the tunnel (e.g., look at your business from the outside, and, being honest w/ yourself, ask yourself how much you'd be willing to pay for it, given an acceptable risk / reward ratio where you also have other options in investing your money -- e.g., stocks / real estate / etc) >From a valuation perspective, if you want $ -- the *good* companies are able to get up to 1.5x annual revenues (e.g., solid stand-alone businesses that are profitable, self sustainalbe, etc -- using a standard residential pure-play WISP business model w/ a $40-60 / month ARPU -- it means you need to have a minimum of at least 1000 customers to make this cut) That said, at 180 customers, the bad news is is that you're probably sitting at a pain point where the value of your business (e.g., what you can realistically sell for) is still far less than what you have invested in it -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 8:15 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Business Value Mark at the Chicago Wispnog Charles put on, there was a couple investors that bought and sold wisps. We had a session on it. The way they described the valuation of a wisp brought the price down well under 1x yearly revenue. More like 6 months of revenue cash buyout. They picked everything apart and devalued based on what ever they could find. And there was a couple of wisps who sold their operation for about 1x yearly. One guy said the buyer wanted some of his commercial subs and took the whole thing and even hired him and another seller said he wanted to toss in the towel after fighting with the telco, get a law degree and donate the rest of his life to fighting the telco's I seem to remember that he sold for under 1x with some cash now and paper. Both of these guys were 802.11b wisps. And I think both are still on some of the wireless lists. You might want to ask on the isp-wireless list or part-15 list as well. Seems that wisps with contracts to their customers and a network of Alvarion, Trango, Canopy or similar was more appealing and had a higher value. Maybe this is helpfull. How many subs do you have? George Mark Nash wrote: > Thanks Marlon... For the record, it's not a rough split between me and > my partner. He's got a more profitable business going, he's put up > money for the wireless business, he's 53 and going to retire when he's > 55, so he wants to focus on his other business. That's what I would do > if I were him. The money he put in is easy to account for and pay back, > but he has also put in a considerable amount of unpaid time and he'd > like to realize some benefit from that, and I should honor that in the > split. Makes sense. So I'm trying to figure out what's reasonable to > offer for his part in all of this. > > Mark Nash > Network Engineer > UnwiredOnline.Net > 350 Holly Street > Junction City, OR 97448 > http://www.uwol.net > 541-998- > 541-998-5599 fax > - Original Message - From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 3:45 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Business Value > > >> Hi Mark, >> >> I don't have time to get into the deep details right now. I can >> probably help with this if you'd like. I've done some valuations >> based on income, customer base etc. >> >> Standard business stuff would put your company value at 1.2 to 2x >> annual earnings. OR 3 to 5 x annual profit (probably not much of that >> if you're growing well). >> >> With a wisp, it gets more complicated because most wisps are growing >> fast and are just starting to get into the profit mode. So the value >> of the company won't even hit most guys for a couple more years. shrug >> >> I've also seen WISPs get paid for the number of homes passed in >> addition to the above. >> >> The last valuation I did I took the number of customers possible on >> the hardware installed, cut that down to more reasonable numbers (100 >> users per ap), figured a moderate growth rate (max of 4 per day after >> 3 years) and came up with an expected customer base in 36 months. >> That's the point that I put a value on the company. I used 1.5x >> annual earnings. At this point the company would have been HUGELY >> profitable though. (started out with 1 install per day, ramped that >> up by 1 every 6 months or so) *I* think I had a reasonable growth >> rate (market size was nearly 1,000,000 people much of which had NO >> broadband) and left room f
RE: [WISPA] Dial-up provider loses Net access amid fee dispute / Ruling favoring Verizon may hike price of service
OMFG -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 6:31 PM To: WISPA General List; isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com Subject: [WISPA] Dial-up provider loses Net access amid fee dispute / Ruling favoring Verizon may hike price of service All, As quoted from the article; "The US Court of Appeals in Boston ruled April 11 that Verizon Communications Inc. can charge per-minute fees for calls to local numbers that dial-up users need to connect to the Internet -- in much the same way that they charge for long-distance or other calls." Also quoted from the article; "Verizon claims it is owed more than $65 million by Global NAPs. The court did not rule on damages, but Verizon cut off Global NAPs's access to its network, effectively shutting down Internet service for customers of dial-up providers like MegaNet of Fall River, which had to find another company to supply emergency connections for its approximately 7,500 dial-up subscribers." Full story here; http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2006/04/28/dial_up_provider_lo ses_net_access_amid_fee_dispute/ Regards, Dawn DiPietro --- --- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)
Another point that's worth raising is if you (as an ISP/WISP/whatever) get into the "value-added" services game yourself (and we all realize that the business of just selling big dumb pipes is coming to an end) Here's a question for the "Net Neutral" people -- if I'm a service provider, and I decide to roll out my own VoIP (or someother service, be it virus filtering, spam blocking, etc...) service and give it "preferential" treatment on my network (and market it as a premium supported product), this I believe puts me in violation of Net Neutrality...correct? -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 1:21 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality) Peter R. wrote: > Isn't there a clause in your AUP about total usage in a month? How > about 30 days notice to affect a price change? > I don't have a bit cap in place. I serve a more mature residential market place. I do have some cam customers and a few heavy users. The way I look at my customers is I let them go as fast as they need and as fast as I can get them to go. and I don't charge any more or less. Usage is not currently a problem. The issue we all face is pricing competition from DSL and Cable. Cherry picking is out of the question when your in a rural small town city. So if a wisp doesn't serve resi subs in that market place chances are they won't exist. And if a wisp can't keep up with speed and services for a competitive price he won't survive either. Most of my subs go 3 to 4 megs and some are now seeing 10-12 megs. I have some video's that I watch from home and I watch the bandwidth usage as I'm watching it. We are also involved in a video on demand venture. Here is some of our video: http://216.110.205.76/Florence/community.htm George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Navini Networks, was no subject
Systems work differently when operating under licensed vs. unlicensed bands That said, no amount of "fancing beamforming" or signal processing or even complex QAM modulation will bust through that -70ish noise floor -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 10:45 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Navini Networks, was no subject Hi Ron I don't know much except what has come across these list since the stuff came out. I seem to recall a couple of wisps saying they've installed them and being successful. I don't recall that they were very fast at all. Some of the municipalities have deployed them, I think maybe Portland Oregon and Seattle Washington have them. And I think it was relatively expensive, Think I heard like 30-60k or more per pop. Big wind loaded multiple panel antennas of size and expensive omni's George Ron Wallace wrote: > George, > > What do you know about them? > > >-Original Message- > >From: George Rogato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2006 11:29 PM > >To: 'WISPA General List' > >Subject: Re: [WISPA] (no subject) > > > >Ron Wallace wrote: > >> To All, > >> > >> Any one know anthing about Navini Networks and all their claims? > sounds >> too good to be true. >> > >> Ron Wallace > >> > > > >I'd like to know as well how it performs and their success rate. It's > >been out awhile now. > > > >I do know that Navini and Vivato were supposed to be revolutionary > >products using smart antennas and direction beam forming techniques to > >overcome nlos and reach in deeper to the customer. > >They get to use more power than a normal PtMP unlicensed system. > >Vivato didn't make it: http://www.vivato.com/ VIVATO ANNOUNCES WIND DOWN > >PLANS. > > > >George > > > > > >-- > >WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > >Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)
But what about oversubscription? Transit costs aside, the cost of last-mile transport of even 1 Mbps of data "pipe" is still far more than $20-30 / month What happens when users actually start *using* the bandwidth they are *promised*... -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 8:46 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality) Content is supposed to get a free ride since we all sell data pipes. If a customer buys 1 meg of data service from me then they are free to use that 1 meg for whatever they want. If that isn't enough bandwidth for what they want then they better buy more. Over time will the customer be able to buy more bandwidth for less money? Sure, that trend has been going on for a long time now. Does that mean content providers are getting a free ride? No, they still have to pay transit costs on their side. Although, we are certainly peering with as many content providers as we can to reduce our transit costs and increase our customers' quality. Its pretty hot shit when you are 4ms away from Google and you don't have to pay for it. -Matt George Rogato wrote: > It is a stretch peter. > > But you have to look at both ends of the argument, if you agree > content providers will prevail in the future and you accept that the > pipe has to get bigger, you can only come to the conclusion that the > provider will have increased costs. > > Can the wisp actually raise thier prices while the telco and cable ops > lower theirs? Not likely. > > The burden has to be shared by the content providers. I'm not saying > make google pay per click, but movies and heavy consumption content > can't get a free ride. > > So what should we do? > > George > > > > > Peter R. wrote: > >> That is one huge IF! Cuz how would they make money? >> >> If it did happen, you could always change your pricing model. Isn't >> there a clause in your AUP about total usage in a month? How about 30 >> days notice to affect a price change? >> >> - Peter >> RAD-INFO, Inc. >> >> >> George Rogato wrote: >> >>> I don't know , Travis, web pages voip ftp streaming music occasional >>> movies low bandwidth streaming video, no problem. >>> >>> But what if, what if tomorrow Travis wakes up and reads in his >>> newspaper that the local cable company or satellite co is going to >>> offer a substantial discount if the just unplug the cable wire and >>> plug in that new set top box into their isp's little router and get >>> ALL their tv that way. >>> >>> Wouldn't you ask, why can you guys use my network to feed your >>> customers. >>> >>> Wouldn't you start wondering if those p4 routers and DS3's you got >>> there be enough to handle that type of traffic? >>> Would you have to upgrade your infrastructure to accomadate this? >>> >>> What if it was google, yahoo, msn, att or even verizon that was >>> offering this as a way to reach customers without trying to build >>> local infrastructure? >>> >>> I'm realizing I'm exaggerating this some, at least for the near >>> future, but if this scenario was to take place, what would you be >>> saying then? >>> >>> George >> >> >> > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Wimax Hardware for sale?
You can do a 5 MHz channel size on an Atheros chip (Off the top of my head, Alvarion & Airaya have implemented it so far) -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 10:11 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wimax Hardware for sale? Patrick Leary wrote: >But which WiMAX are you talking about? There are lots of versions and >the one version that no one has...and no one should be clamoring for >just yet...is unlicensed WiMAX. > > > I am certainly looking for WiMAX features such as spectral efficiency in 5 Ghz unlicensed gear right now. I don't really care about the standard. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)
But that's just the last mile local loop -- what about the ATM DS-3 circuit coming back (and so forth) Then there's servicing costs / etc Keep in mind -- Bell copper has been amortized for quite a long time now -- and has been installed at almost a 100% penetration rate -- if you're building your own infrastructure (wireless per say) -- do you realistically believe that you're monthly costs for transport (inclusive from your NOC to the customer's house) is less? -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 12:28 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality) It is? IIRC, the tariff price of 1.5 meg DSL from BellSouth is $23.95. -Matt Charles Wu wrote: >But what about oversubscription? >Transit costs aside, the cost of last-mile transport of even 1 Mbps of >data "pipe" is still far more than $20-30 / month What happens when >users actually start *using* the bandwidth they are *promised*... > >-Charles > >--- >CWLab >Technology Architects >http://www.cwlab.com > > > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Matt Liotta >Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 8:46 AM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality) > > >Content is supposed to get a free ride since we all sell data pipes. If >a customer buys 1 meg of data service from me then they are free to use >that 1 meg for whatever they want. If that isn't enough bandwidth for >what they want then they better buy more. Over time will the customer be >able to buy more bandwidth for less money? Sure, that trend has been >going on for a long time now. Does that mean content providers are >getting a free ride? No, they still have to pay transit costs on their >side. Although, we are certainly peering with as many content providers >as we can to reduce our transit costs and increase our customers' >quality. Its pretty hot shit when you are 4ms away from Google and you >don't have to pay for it. > >-Matt > >George Rogato wrote: > > > >>It is a stretch peter. >> >>But you have to look at both ends of the argument, if you agree >>content providers will prevail in the future and you accept that the >>pipe has to get bigger, you can only come to the conclusion that the >>provider will have increased costs. >> >>Can the wisp actually raise thier prices while the telco and cable ops >>lower theirs? Not likely. >> >>The burden has to be shared by the content providers. I'm not saying >>make google pay per click, but movies and heavy consumption content >>can't get a free ride. >> >>So what should we do? >> >>George >> >> >> >> >>Peter R. wrote: >> >> >> >>>That is one huge IF! Cuz how would they make money? >>> >>>If it did happen, you could always change your pricing model. Isn't >>>there a clause in your AUP about total usage in a month? How about 30 >>>days notice to affect a price change? >>> >>>- Peter >>>RAD-INFO, Inc. >>> >>> >>>George Rogato wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>I don't know , Travis, web pages voip ftp streaming music occasional >>>>movies low bandwidth streaming video, no problem. >>>> >>>>But what if, what if tomorrow Travis wakes up and reads in his >>>>newspaper that the local cable company or satellite co is going to >>>>offer a substantial discount if the just unplug the cable wire and >>>>plug in that new set top box into their isp's little router and get >>>>ALL their tv that way. >>>> >>>>Wouldn't you ask, why can you guys use my network to feed your >>>>customers. >>>> >>>>Wouldn't you start wondering if those p4 routers and DS3's you got >>>>there be enough to handle that type of traffic? Would you have to >>>>upgrade your infrastructure to accomadate this? >>>> >>>>What if it was google, yahoo, msn, att or even verizon that was >>>>offering this as a way to reach customers without trying to build >>>>local infrastructure? >>>> >>>>I'm realizing I'm exaggerating this some, at least for the near >>>>future, but if this scenario was to take place, what would you be >>>>saying then? >>>> >>>>George >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> > > > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)
>I was simply responding to your statement regarding just the last mile >transport. If you want to include other considerations in the discussion >then I don't understand your earlier email. When considering net neutrality and its implications (e.g., allowing the TV company to stream video over your network) -- I'm am trying to point out that it's not simply a matter of bandwidth from the tower to the customer, but also the tower backbone all the way to your NOC Now -- if you're selling dedicated commercial bandwidth, this isn't an issue, but if you're following standard residential oversubscription rules / ratio (e.g., 1000 acounts equates to about 10 Mb @ 95%) -- it's going to get EXTREMELY PAINFUL if those customers actually try to use all the bandwidth that's been "marketed" to them Then there's the issue of all those "nasty/filtered" services and net neutrality -- will filtering bittorrent (or whatever nasty new bandwidth hogging file sharing or whatever new program out there) violate the terms of network neutrality? -Charles -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be "breaking the law" w/ a 3650 deployment --- To: "'WISPA General List'" Cc: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band - Clarifications Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising turn-key 3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding interference in congested license-exempt ISM/UNII bands. Although the FCC issued adopted rules back in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband in the 3.65 GHz band, a "minor" contention-based requirement has delayed the deployment of wireless broadband services in this band as equipment manufacturers currently work behind the scenes to iron out the details. As things currently stand, deploying a 3.65 GHz system today falls under Subpart 5: Experimental Radio Service of the FCC Rules. Infrastructure Investment & Experimentation under Part 5 needs to be done strictly from a "curiosity" perspective rather than one of "commercial network expansion." Part 5 permits experimentation in scientific or technical operations directly related to the use of radio waves. The rules provide the opportunity to experiment with new techniques or new services prior to submitting proposals to the FCC to change its rules. Some useful excerpts regarding Experimental Licensing 47CFR5.3: Scope of Service Stations operating in the Experimental Radio Service will be permitted to conduct the following type of operations: (a)Experimentations in scientific or technical radio research (b) Experimentations under contractual agreement with the United States Government, or for export purposes. (c)Communications essential to a research project. (d) Technical demonstrations of equipment or techniques. (e)Field strength surveys by persons not eligible for authorization in any other service. (f) Demonstration of equipment to prospective purchasers by persons engaged in the business of selling radio equipment. (g)Testing of equipment in connection with production or regulatory approval of such equipment. (h)Development of radio technique, equipment or engineering data not related to an existing or proposed service, including field or factory testing or calibration of equipment. (i) Development of radio technique, equipment, operational data or engineering data related to an existing or proposed radio service. (j) Limited market studies. (k) Types of experiments that are not specifically covered under paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section will be considered upon demonstration of need 47CFR5.51: Eligibility of License (a)Authorizations for stations in the Experimental Radio Service will be issued only to persons qualified to conduct experimentation utilizing radio waves for scientific or technical operation data directly related to a use of radio not provided by existing rules; or for communications in connection with research projects when existing communications facilities are inadequate. 47CFR5.63: Supplementary Statements (a)Each applicant for an authorization in the Experimental Radio Service must enclose with the application a narrative statement describing in detail the program of research and experimentation proposed, the specific objectives sought to be accomplished; and how the program of experimentation has a reasonable promise of contribution to the development, extension, or expansion, or utilization of the radio art, or is along lines not already investigated. For further information regarding experimental licensing, the FCC has a nice online FAQ that gives a step-by-step how-to on experimental licensing: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/faqs/elbfaqs.html --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their Form 477s also The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards "flaunting the rules" -- namely the fact that you are just reinforcing the ILEC argument that unlicensed spectrum just creates a bunch of "cowboys" that can't be taken seriously Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink flamingo suit when he represents the industry in DC -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of jeffrey thomas Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment In the larger scale of things- when you compare this to a carrier deployment which would deliver thousands of CPE's service, this is a test. I know of one company that has recieved 28 STA's for 14 markets, for over 2000 CPE. - Jeff On Tue, 23 May 2006 21:33:33 -0400, "Gino A. Villarini" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Do you really think towerstream need 150 field units or cpes to "test" > a single base station? > > Gino A. Villarini > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. > tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Jack Unger > Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:07 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > > Gino, > > Is Towerstream doing this - using 3650 to deliver commercial service? > > jack > > > Gino A. Villarini wrote: > > > Towerstream anyone ? > > > > Gino A. Villarini > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. > > tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Behalf Of Jack Unger > > Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 6:56 PM > > To: WISPA General List > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > > > > Jeffrey, > > > > I have to question the "judgement ability" (or the lack of it) of > > anyone > > who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a licensed > > "experimental" system and using it for a commercial, revenue-generating > > purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO): > > > > 1. Someone with no business sense > > 2. Someone with no appreciation of (or experience with) the > > enforcement > > powers of the FCC > > 3. Someone who will likely turn out to be their own worst enemy > > 4. NOT someone who I could rely upon to provide me reliable, long-term > > WISP service. > >jack > > > > > > > > jeffrey thomas wrote: > > > > > >>Patrick, > >> > >>It doesnt change the fact that many have launched "limited" > >>deployments as a "test" but still charged for the access service, > >>banking on the fact that the FCC has set the band aside for > >>unlicensed anyways, and that the chance of the FCC cracking down on > >>them is very low. > >> > >>Im not saying this is right, but reality is such that they will be > >>evenutally amending the rules and the gear according to my sources > >>that is available today will be compliant. *shrug* > >> > >>- > >> > >>Jeff > >> > >>On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:37:11 -0700, "Patrick Leary" > >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >> > >> > >>>Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any > >>>commercial services using 3650MHz. > >>> > >>>- Patrick > >>> > >>>-Original Message- > >>>From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM > >>>To: 'WISPA General List' > >>>Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > >>> > >>>Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be > >>>"breaking the law" w/ a 3650 deployment > >>> > >>> > >>>--- > >>>To: "'WISPA General List'" > >>>Cc: ; > >>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM > >>>Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band - > >>>Clarifications > >>> > >>> > >>&
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
W/out a license, 3.6 is going to work just as *bad* You really need 700 (or a <1 GHz band) to really get mobility / portability in an unlicensed / uncoordinated environment -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of jeffrey thomas Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 3:02 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed service to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors. 5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors 5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors 4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors 3.5Ghz does, to "portable" devices similar to the equipment used by clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works indoors to about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO. When you can deliver a zero truck roll model with 90% or above availablity, is when operators by the truckload will deploy equipment. At that point, you will see deployments in the thousands, like the ones in mexico of 750,000 homes serviced. - Jeff On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:20:23 -0400, "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > How do you figure? > You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that? > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "Jeffrey Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > > > > Frankly, > > > > The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the > > industry > > to > > really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found is > > that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will be small > > and limited deployments of wisp size and not many large scale deployments > > outside of 2.5ghz or 700 mhz operators. > > > > - > > > > Jeff > > > > > > > > > > > > On 5/24/06 6:14 AM, "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their > >> Form > >> 477s > >> also > >> > >> The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards > >> "flaunting > >> the rules" -- namely the fact that you are just reinforcing the ILEC > >> argument that unlicensed spectrum just creates a bunch of "cowboys" that > >> can't be taken seriously > >> > >> Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink > >> flamingo suit when he represents the industry in DC > >> > >> -Charles > >> > >> --- > >> CWLab > >> Technology Architects > >> http://www.cwlab.com > >> > >> > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of jeffrey thomas > >> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:37 PM > >> To: WISPA General List > >> Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > >> > >> > >> In the larger scale of things- when you compare this to a carrier > >> deployment > >> which would deliver thousands of CPE's service, this is a test. I know of > >> one company that has recieved 28 STA's for 14 markets, for over 2000 CPE. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> - > >> > >> Jeff > >> > >> On Tue, 23 May 2006 21:33:33 -0400, "Gino A. Villarini" > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> said: > >>> Do you really think towerstream need 150 field units or cpes to > >>> "test" a single base station? > >>> > >>> Gino A. Villarini > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. > >>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 > >>> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> On Behalf Of Jack Unger > >>> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:07 PM > >>> To: WISPA General List > >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > >>> > >>> Gino, > >>> > >>> Is Towerstream doing this - using 3650 to deliver commercial > >>>
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
To say the least -- a highly upsetting (to many operators) isse about WiMAX is the fact that not all WiMAX is created equal... Sure, WiMAX talks about QoS, ARQ, encryption, scheduled MACs, etc -- but is it required for base certification today? Hehe -Charles P.S. -- BREAKING NEWS FOR WISP types -- I saw a WORKING DEMO of a MINI-PCI WiMAX card for 3.5 Some interesting CPE makers (they all use this mini-pci WiMAX card inside) http://www.ente.com.pl/default.aspx?docId=2555&mId1=2509 http://www.winetworks.com/products_win2000.html "The Book" CPE (IMO - quite nifty looking) http://www.quadmaxsystems.se/products.php --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 10:00 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment All WiMAX vendors will have some version of this type of CPE since that is a mandatory requirement for licensed band operators. Each will have their own attempts at special sauce to differentiate their offering. It will get very interesting come fall (which is not to say that these last 8 years have not been interesting!) Patrick -Original Message- From: George Rogato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 3:15 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Patrick Leary wrote: > A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment > yielding much higher spectral efficiency and system gain. > > Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other factors > are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e version > of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the > base station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE > with a SIM > card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation > and you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna. > > Patrick Leary > AVP Marketing > Alvarion, Inc. > o: 650.314.2628 > c: 760.580.0080 > Vonage: 650.641.1243 I don't know how much more we cn ask for, "zero truck roll self install" How well does it penetrate trees and what kind of bal park pricing are we talking here. Please throw something out there for pricing. Thanks George -- 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. 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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Hi Patrick, But all the "fancy schmancy" technology you implement won't do @#$@ unless 3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the area (including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats you for breakfast, lunch & dinner =( -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding much higher spectral efficiency and system gain. Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other factors are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e version of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a SIM card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > 3.5Ghz does, I find that hard to believe. 2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely on 900Mhz. What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task? With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP or mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed. Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "jeffrey thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:02 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed > service to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors. > > 5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors > > 5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors > > 4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors > > 3.5Ghz does, to "portable" devices similar to the equipment used by > clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works > indoors to about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO. > > When you can deliver a zero truck roll model with 90% or above > availablity, is when operators by the truckload will deploy equipment. > At that point, you will see deployments in the thousands, like the > ones in mexico of 750,000 homes serviced. > > - > > Jeff > > > > On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:20:23 -0400, "Tom DeReggi" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> How do you figure? >> You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that? >> >> Tom DeReggi >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Jeffrey Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment >> >> >> > Frankly, >> > >> > The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the >> > industry >> > to >> > really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found >> > is >> > that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will be >> > small >> > and limited deployments of wisp size and not many large scale >> > deployments >> > outside of 2.5ghz or 700 mhz operators. >> > >> > - >> > >> > Jeff >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On 5/24/06 6:14 AM, "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> >> All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their >> >> Form 477s also >> >> >> >> The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards >> >> "flaunting the rules" -- namely the fact that you are just >> >> reinforcing the ILEC argument that unlicensed spectrum just >> >> creates a bunch of "cowboys" that >> >> can't be taken seriously >> >> >> >> Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink >> >> flamingo >> >> suit when he represents the industry in DC
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
A shared license (w/ zero barriers to entry, etc) w/out a very strict coordination scheme (which will never be implemented by the FCC due to the fact that it's A LOT of work to build, maintain and administer) is still basically an unlicensed system Say there are 10 operators in a market You deploy your fancy schmancy 1024-FFT OFDM/mimo/beam-forming/space-coded/blah blah system w/ it's superior scheduled WiMAX MAC The other 9 of em deploy FM modulated FSK based systems across town What do you think is going to happen? -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:17 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment But, 3.65 isn't going to be unlicensed; it is going to be a shared license program. IMHO, that means that you will only have to contend with other operators as opposed to every consumer with a laptop. -Matt Charles Wu wrote: >W/out a license, 3.6 is going to work just as *bad* > >You really need 700 (or a <1 GHz band) to really get mobility / >portability in an unlicensed / uncoordinated environment > >-Charles > >--- >CWLab >Technology Architects >http://www.cwlab.com > > > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of jeffrey thomas >Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 3:02 AM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > > >The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed service >to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors. > >5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors > >5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors > >4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors > >3.5Ghz does, to "portable" devices similar to the equipment used by >clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works >indoors to about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO. > >When you can deliver a zero truck roll model with 90% or above >availablity, is when operators by the truckload will deploy equipment. >At that point, you will see deployments in the thousands, like the ones >in mexico of 750,000 homes serviced. > >- > >Jeff > > > >On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:20:23 -0400, "Tom DeReggi" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > >>How do you figure? >>You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that? >> >>Tom DeReggi >>RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >>IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >> >> >>- Original Message - >>From: "Jeffrey Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: "WISPA General List" >>Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM >>Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment >> >> >> >> >>>Frankly, >>> >>>The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the >>>industry >>>to >>>really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found is >>>that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will be >>> >>> >small > > >>>and limited deployments of wisp size and not many large scale >>> >>> >deployments > > >>>outside of 2.5ghz or 700 mhz operators. >>> >>>- >>> >>>Jeff >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>On 5/24/06 6:14 AM, "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their >>>>Form >>>>477s >>>>also >>>> >>>>The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards >>>>"flaunting the rules" -- namely the fact that you are just >>>>reinforcing the ILEC argument that unlicensed spectrum just creates >>>>a bunch of "cowboys" >>>> >>>> >that > > >>>>can't be taken seriously >>>> >>>>Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink >>>>flamingo suit when he represents the industry in DC >>>> >>>>-Charles >>>> >>>>--- >>>>CWLab >>>>Technology Architects >>>>http://www.cwlab.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>-Original Message- >>>
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Yes -- but WHAT are you deploying in 5.8? The most commonly used 5.8 systems out there are EXTREMELY BASIC as compared to what stuff out there can do -- but that is required, since interference robustness / reliability is the #1 consideration in license-exempt band operation There are systems out there (Navini for instance) that do some really cool things, but are basically useless in today's license-exempt frequencies b/c of interference All those "cool" things don't mean @[EMAIL PROTECTED] if you've got a -70 / -80 noise floor -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 1:03 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Charles Wu wrote: >What do you think is going to happen? > > > Exactly the same thing that we have with 5.8Ghz, but without all the non-operators. While that isn't the same as mutually exclusive spectrum, it is a big step forward for all of us successful companies using 5.8Ghz. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Hi Matt, You are only limited to 1.5 Mbps service due to the fact that it is almost impossible to achieve anything about a 10 dB SNR In 900 Mhz -- say you had a 25+ dB SNR (e.g., how life works in licensed bands) -- you could deliver 10-15 Mb on a 5 MHz channel -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 9:59 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment The radios that exist for 900Mhz today barely qualify from a delivered bandwidth perspective. We hardly ever lead with a 1.5Mbps service, but sometimes are forced to sell just 1.5Mbps because we can only make the shot with 900Mhz. If we were limited to 5Mhz with a 3.65Ghz radio then I don't see why we would use them at all. 10Mhz would at least be interesting, but that is too much channel space for multually exclusive spectrum. About the only interesting thing you can do with 5Mhz is a WiMAX mobile service, but it would never compete with a similar service operating in 2.3Ghz or 2.5Ghz (not that I think a 5Mhz WiMAX mobile service in those bands does much to compete with 3G anyway). Ultimatelly, I think a 5Mhz license is only going to create "3G me too" services that aren't that interesting. I know all the radio manufactures would love that since services that target individuals sell more radios, but alas, I am not a radio manufacture. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: >Respectfully, I do not agree. Look how much is done in UL with just >26MHz in 900MHz, most of which is not useable due to the noise of high >power primary users and consumer devices. Also, rural customers and >operators should have the ability to achieve high QoS services and not >merely best effort. Splitting the band leaves some room for both types >of services. > >I would also prefer the UL part of the split to be broken up into >something like 5MHz channels so gear is not sold into the market that >will use the entire swath of band from one radio UNLESS it is a P2P >radio, in which case the entire range should be usable. > >Patrick > >-Original Message- >From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:58 PM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > >Splitting up the band will just make it useless and interference free. > >-Matt > >Patrick Leary wrote: > > > >>You make the mistake of assuming that I am talking about an unlicensed >>3.65 product Charles. We would not likely build a UL version of all >>that. I am >> >> >in > > >>complete agreement with you on 3.650 in terms of the end reality and >> >> >utility > > >>of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I >>support essentially splitting the band. >> >>Patrick Leary >>AVP Marketing >>Alvarion, Inc. >>o: 650.314.2628 >>c: 760.580.0080 >>Vonage: 650.641.1243 >> >>-Original Message- >>From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM >>To: 'WISPA General List' >>Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment >> >>Hi Patrick, >> >>But all the "fancy schmancy" technology you implement won't do @#$@ >>unless 3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the >>area (including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats >>you for breakfast, lunch & dinner =( >> >>-Charles >> >>--- >>CWLab >>Technology Architects >>http://www.cwlab.com >> >> >> >>-Original Message- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>On Behalf Of Patrick Leary >>Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM >>To: 'WISPA General List' >>Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment >> >> >>A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment >>yielding much higher spectral efficiency and system gain. >> >>Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other >>factors are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our >>802.16e >> >> >version > > >>of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the >>base station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE >>with a >> >> >SIM > > >>card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation >>and you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external anten
RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
Some interesting statistics -- 30% of the WISPs who attended our last WiNOG "claimed" on their surveys they had been in the wireless business for more than 5 years and had more than 1k wireless CPE deployed in the field Less than 10% of them claimed to be "pure-play" license-exempt fixed wireless providers This is why we call them Wi- "NOGs" instead of "ISPs" nowadays Don't forget, a lot of rural telcos / CLECs / ILECs (e.g., the "enemy") have gotten into license-exempt fixed wireless... -Charles P.S. - I heard a rumor that the current UL market leader, Motorola Canopy sold close to $100 million in gear last year alone --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 1:46 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Hopefully, the 8% (6,000,000) figure includes ONLY end-users who use wireless broadband to get to/from their home and NOT the end-users who have a copper/fiber-based (cable/telco) broadband connection to their home and then use a Wi-Fi router/access point that provides the "final 50-ft" connection wirelessly. There's so much sloppy and innacurate "journalism" these days that I need reassurance that the article means what it appears to be saying. If there are 6,000,000 end-users and if there are 5000 WISPs then each WISP would, on average, have 1,200 subscribers. I'm not sure that this passes the "sniff" test. jack John Scrivner wrote: > Check this out from the Pew report. It appears that fixed wireless is > much > bigger than what even I thought. According to this report 8% of all broadband > connections in the US are delivered via fixed broadband wireless. That means you > guys! Woo Hoo! > Scriv > > > -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Our next WISP Workshop is June 21-22 in Atlanta, GA. Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
>30% of what number Charles? At the last show, 500+ attended representing about 350ish operators Of these, about 40% responded Unfortunately, we have a confidentiality agreement with our survey respondents, so I cannot list names >How many WISPs said they have over 1,000 CPE. I can only think of about 20 with that high a number. A recent Tim Saunders article in BBW World alone that showed about 40+ Wireless Network Operators w/ 1,000+ CPE (and there are a lot more that Tim missed) Keep in mind, the majority of these operators no longer actively participate in these list-servs, most of em are busy out in the field installing customers / running their businesses =) Did you know that in Sedona, AZ alone (middle of no-where in Northern AZ mountains), w/ a total population of ~15k, there are 2 Operators w/ 1,000+ CPE? (and there's also cable and DSL competition in town too) Even at the end of my equipment distribution days (late 2004), I had at least 50 customers whom I'd been working with over the years who had purchased over 1,000 CPE from me...I know for sure that most of these guys are still operating and in business If you think about it, 1,000 isn't all that much -- take a look at the numbers If you've been a WISP since 2001, and you've been steadily buying CPE / installing 20 net new customers (minus churn, etc) / month (~ 1 install / working day / month), in over 5 years time (e.g., today in 2006), you'd have 1,200 customers Nowadays, w/ $150-$200 turn-key WISP CPE pricing (Motorola, Tranzeo, Trango), it's hard to even buy CPE in anything smaller than a 20-pack -Charles P.S. -- now another interesting statistics is the "top-end" of the license-exempt operator market -- although a lot of people nowadays have over 1,000 CPE installed, ALMOST NONE have been able to successfully scale beyond the 10,000 CPE level -- still trying to figure that one out... --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 3:35 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Patrick -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 1:34 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Some interesting statistics -- 30% of the WISPs who attended our last WiNOG "claimed" on their surveys they had been in the wireless business for more than 5 years and had more than 1k wireless CPE deployed in the field Less than 10% of them claimed to be "pure-play" license-exempt fixed wireless providers This is why we call them Wi- "NOGs" instead of "ISPs" nowadays Don't forget, a lot of rural telcos / CLECs / ILECs (e.g., the "enemy") have gotten into license-exempt fixed wireless... -Charles P.S. - I heard a rumor that the current UL market leader, Motorola Canopy sold close to $100 million in gear last year alone --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 1:46 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Hopefully, the 8% (6,000,000) figure includes ONLY end-users who use wireless broadband to get to/from their home and NOT the end-users who have a copper/fiber-based (cable/telco) broadband connection to their home and then use a Wi-Fi router/access point that provides the "final 50-ft" connection wirelessly. There's so much sloppy and innacurate "journalism" these days that I need reassurance that the article means what it appears to be saying. If there are 6,000,000 end-users and if there are 5000 WISPs then each WISP would, on average, have 1,200 subscribers. I'm not sure that this passes the "sniff" test. jack John Scrivner wrote: > Check this out from the Pew report. It appears that fixed wireless is > much > bigger than what even I thought. According to this report 8% of all broadband > connections in the US are delivered via fixed broadband wireless. That means you > guys! Woo Hoo! > Scriv > > > -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Our next WISP Workshop is June 21-22 in Atlanta, GA. Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lis
RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
Probably close to true, though I believe a bit on the high side. We probably sold around $80M in UL last year out of our $195M total since our UL/licensed split has historically hovered about 60% licensed/ 40% UL. Not bad in the face of massive behemoth like Motorola. So -- you sold $80M in UL last year What percentage of the was in the US? Let's gestimate that 50% of your UL sales were in North America (which, IMO, might be a bit low, since Internationally, 5 GHz and 900 MHz is kinda @#$@ up) So we're at $40M total Not knowing you're exact numbers, lets say there's an even split between all product lines (e.g., Backhaul, 900 Mhz, 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz) So 75% is PtMP Now we're at $30M Now, AP/CPE ratio -- not sure about Alvarion, but I remember from my equipment distribution days that we used to sell something like a 1:20 ratio -- Lets assume an average AP / infrastructure price of $2.5k, and an average CPE price of $500 - so using those numbers...about 20% of your sales revenue is APs, and 80% of your revenue is CPE 80% of $30M = $24M $24M / 500 = 48,000 CPE shipped into the US in 2005 alone How many Alvarion WISPs are there today still buying your product? If the number is 1,000 than that's an average of 480 CPE installed / WISP this year (or ~2 CPE installation / day) If 2,000, then that's an average of 240 CPE installed / WISP this year (or ~1 CPE installation / day) Over a 5 year time period (I would bet that many of your customers have been operating since 2001) -- that's a total of 2,000 WISPs w/ over 1,000 CPE installed Now, remember, you're Alvarion, and some of your customers have been installing these things since 1998... -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 3:44 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Charles said - "P.S. - I heard a rumor that the current UL market leader, Motorola Canopy sold close to $100 million in gear last year alone" In the total combined market we still lead, but for sure the real test comes when all major TEMs field their own 802.16e-2005. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 1:34 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Some interesting statistics -- 30% of the WISPs who attended our last WiNOG "claimed" on their surveys they had been in the wireless business for more than 5 years and had more than 1k wireless CPE deployed in the field Less than 10% of them claimed to be "pure-play" license-exempt fixed wireless providers This is why we call them Wi- "NOGs" instead of "ISPs" nowadays Don't forget, a lot of rural telcos / CLECs / ILECs (e.g., the "enemy") have gotten into license-exempt fixed wireless... -Charles P.S. - I heard a rumor that the current UL market leader, Motorola Canopy sold close to $100 million in gear last year alone --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 1:46 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Hopefully, the 8% (6,000,000) figure includes ONLY end-users who use wireless broadband to get to/from their home and NOT the end-users who have a copper/fiber-based (cable/telco) broadband connection to their home and then use a Wi-Fi router/access point that provides the "final 50-ft" connection wirelessly. There's so much sloppy and innacurate "journalism" these days that I need reassurance that the article means what it appears to be saying. If there are 6,000,000 end-users and if there are 5000 WISPs then each WISP would, on average, have 1,200 subscribers. I'm not sure that this passes the "sniff" test. jack John Scrivner wrote: > Check this out from the Pew report. It appears that fixed wireless is > much > bigger than what even I thought. According to this report 8% of all broadband > connections in the US are delivered via fixed broadband wireless. That means you > guys! Woo Hoo! > Scriv > > > -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Our next WISP Workshop is June 21-22 in Atlanta, GA. Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISP
RE: [WISPA] looking for a device
Hi Matt, To throw in a dose of realism -- even if you roll your own Mikrotik solution - it will most likely cost you more than the $300-600 / unit budget that you have (and you get ZERO support =) Example RB532A: $185 SR5: $105 SR2: $105 All that is is a board and 2 radio cards -- then you still need to add in pigtails / poe / enclosures / stand-offs / antennas / PITA factor / etc Then you got to figure out how to make it work =) For a complete, supported w/ manuals/etc, FCC CERTIFIED system -- you will probably be in the $1k+ / unit ballpark (or $3k+ if you go Strix, Tropos, Firetide, Skypilot, etc) -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 1:28 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] looking for a device I would expect the devices to cost somewhere between $300 and $600 each. As far as support goes, I would expect it to be similar to other low cost radio vendors like Trango, etc. -Matt Sam Tetherow wrote: > What are you willing to pay and what are your support requirements? > >Sam Tetherow >Sandhills Wireless > > Matt Liotta wrote: > >> I understand you are suggesting I wouldn't have to psychically build >> the devices, but that isn't what I am worried about. I want an >> off-the-shelf product that is supported by a vendor. That includes it >> being pre-built, software installed, and support available. >> >> -Matt >> >> Sam Tetherow wrote: >> >>> If you order it all from wisp-router they will assemble it for your >>> so you would get a die-cast case with the RB mounted the radios and >>> pigtails installed. All you would need to do is set up the software >>> end of things, which could be done with a script once you have the >>> initial setup done. One thing to note, I have not ordered 5Ghz >>> pigtails from wisp-router in quite sometime, but the last time I did >>> order them, their quality was questionable. >>> >>> I would bet if you went the WRAP/StarOS route wisp-router would do >>> the same. No idea on other vendors or the WAR boards as I have >>> never ordered them. >>> >>>Sam Tetherow >>>Sandhills Wireless >>> >>> Matt Liotta wrote: >>> I am looking for a device I can buy that does all of this out of the box. I don't want to build my own since I need 30-40 of them in the next 30 days. -Matt Sam Tetherow wrote: > Mikrotik on a routerboard 532 should do the trick although I > haven't messed with the VLAN stuff. > I am not a StarOS user, but I would bet that a StarOS setup on > either a WRAP or WAR board would work > as well. > >Sam Tetherow >Sandhills Wireless > > Matt Liotta wrote: > >> I am looking for a device with the following requirements: >> >> * Can backhaul at >11Mbps operating in the 5.2Ghz band >> * Can support VLANs >> * Can assign a VLAN to one Ethernet port >> * Powered by PoE (the standard is not required) >> * Can act as a 2.4Ghz Wi-Fi access point assigned to a different >> VLAN than the Ethernet port >> * Everything in a single outdoor enclosure >> >> Any ideas? >> >> -Matt > > > > > > > >>> >> > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] looking for a device
I don't think i am unrealistic. We built a platform from off-the-shelf parts that meets our requirements for under $500. How well that will work outside of our lab coupled with the time it took to build tells us we want nothing to do with building our own. EXACTLY The bits and pieces will definitely fit in your budget (in this case, $500), but keep in mind, integration, development, support etc adds a lot to the "top line" Remember, most manufacturers are selling products at 40-60% gross margin -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 2:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] looking for a device -Matt Charles Wu wrote: >Hi Matt, > >To throw in a dose of realism -- even if you roll your own Mikrotik >solution >- it will most likely cost you more than the $300-600 / unit budget that you >have (and you get ZERO support =) > >Example > >RB532A: $185 >SR5: $105 >SR2: $105 > >All that is is a board and 2 radio cards -- then you still need to add >in pigtails / poe / enclosures / stand-offs / antennas / PITA factor / >etc > >Then you got to figure out how to make it work =) > >For a complete, supported w/ manuals/etc, FCC CERTIFIED system -- you >will probably be in the $1k+ / unit ballpark (or $3k+ if you go Strix, >Tropos, Firetide, Skypilot, etc) > >-Charles > >--- >CWLab >Technology Architects >http://www.cwlab.com > > > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Matt Liotta >Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 1:28 PM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] looking for a device > > >I would expect the devices to cost somewhere between $300 and $600 >each. >As far as support goes, I would expect it to be similar to other low >cost radio vendors like Trango, etc. > >-Matt > >Sam Tetherow wrote: > > > >>What are you willing to pay and what are your support requirements? >> >> Sam Tetherow >> Sandhills Wireless >> >>Matt Liotta wrote: >> >> >> >>>I understand you are suggesting I wouldn't have to psychically build >>>the devices, but that isn't what I am worried about. I want an >>>off-the-shelf product that is supported by a vendor. That includes it >>>being pre-built, software installed, and support available. >>> >>>-Matt >>> >>>Sam Tetherow wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>If you order it all from wisp-router they will assemble it for your >>>>so you would get a die-cast case with the RB mounted the radios and >>>>pigtails installed. All you would need to do is set up the software >>>>end of things, which could be done with a script once you have the >>>>initial setup done. One thing to note, I have not ordered 5Ghz >>>>pigtails from wisp-router in quite sometime, but the last time I did >>>>order them, their quality was questionable. >>>> >>>>I would bet if you went the WRAP/StarOS route wisp-router would do >>>>the same. No idea on other vendors or the WAR boards as I have >>>>never ordered them. >>>> >>>> Sam Tetherow >>>> Sandhills Wireless >>>> >>>>Matt Liotta wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>I am looking for a device I can buy that does all of this out of >>>>>the box. I don't want to build my own since I need 30-40 of them in >>>>>the next 30 days. >>>>> >>>>>-Matt >>>>> >>>>>Sam Tetherow wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Mikrotik on a routerboard 532 should do the trick although I >>>>>>haven't messed with the VLAN stuff. I am not a StarOS user, but I >>>>>>would bet that a StarOS setup on either a WRAP or WAR board would >>>>>>work as well. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sam Tetherow >>>>>> Sandhills Wireless >>>>>> >>>>>>Matt Liotta wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>I am looking for a device with the following requirements: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>* Can backhaul at >11Mbps operating in the 5.2Ghz band >>>>>>>* Can support VLANs >>>>>>>* Can assign a VLAN to one Ethernet port >>>>>>>* Powered by PoE (the standard is not required) >>>>>>>* Can act as a 2.4Ghz Wi-Fi access point assigned to a different >>>>>>>VLAN than the Ethernet port >>>>>>>* Everything in a single outdoor enclosure >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Any ideas? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>-Matt >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > > > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Wireless ?
>19807 Catawba Ave. >Cornelius, NC 28031 Boun Senekham (CTI Sales Rep) actually lives in Cornelius, NC -- maybe he might know someone? -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Good news on the wimax unlicensed front
Just do it like the mesh guys 20-30 APs / square mile -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sam Tetherow Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 10:04 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Good news on the wimax unlicensed front Color me jaded, but how can you get a zero truck roll CPE in 5.4-5.9 unlicensed? Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless jeffrey thomas wrote: >Guys, > >Just got out of training for the new AIRSPAN wimax product for 5.8. >Unlike most other vendors, they are going to market with their >802.16-2004 5.4-5.9 >solution and are shipping in JULY, and expect FCC certification for >their 802.16-2004 >product for 4.9 Ghz as well in July! I am very excited about this as the >3 plus >years of waiting for a viable, wimax product in a band that everyone can >deploy >in will be available. > > >So, while the equipment has not been ratified by the Wimax forum as of >yet, ( and they havent even decided when they will be certifying >vendors ) this product will >be either complaint as is or will require a minor software upgrade for >Wimax >forum certified compatiability, assuming that the forum go with the >802.16-2004 >spec as planned. > >some notes on the product: > >initial pricing expected to be very reasonably priced on the AP side of >things, > > >>600.00 / cpe >> >> > >35 mb / sector real world throughput @ 64 QAM > >full service flow integration for QOS > >can be used in either 5 mhz channel size or 10 mhz channel > >zero truck roll CPE ( users can easily install the equipment ) > >full blown FCAPS compliant NMS ( Fault monitoring configuration >authentication provisioning security ) > > >color me excited :) > >- > >Jeff > > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Good news on the wimax unlicensed front
Jeffrey Thomas = Jeff Booher Jeffrey Thomas Booher actually -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JohnnyO Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 11:58 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Good news on the wimax unlicensed front Jeffrey Thomas - DOH ! - For some reason I had Jeff Booher on the brain and made mistake of making this post ! ! ! ! Please - pretty please forgive me for mixing you up ? /me holds head down and kicks rocks JohnnyO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JohnnyO Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 11:32 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Good news on the wimax unlicensed front Jeff - how many other platforms have you tooted the horn on that have never produced the results you claimed ? Not trying to rain on your parade here, but every platform you've tooted ranting raves about, has never lived up to it's hype from what I have seen. JohnnyO Wanting to be a believer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 11:22 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Good news on the wimax unlicensed front Simple. Since the CPE self provisions and aligns itself, the customer only need to know they need to install the device on their rooftop. And they also have indoor devices that work to maybe a KM or so from the tower but those Are as simple as a customer plugs in the ethernet plug and power and puts The CPE near a window. I honestly doubt anyone will use them, but they Are available. So really zero truck roll? Not really as most customers will want the wisp to install it- but the major benefit is that the CPE's will not require techs to carry a pc or anything other than cabling and tools to set up the roof mount. - Jeff On 6/8/06 8:04 PM, "Sam Tetherow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Color me jaded, but how can you get a zero truck roll CPE in 5.4-5.9 > unlicensed? > > Sam Tetherow > Sandhills Wireless > > jeffrey thomas wrote: > >> Guys, >> >> Just got out of training for the new AIRSPAN wimax product for 5.8. >> Unlike most other vendors, they are going to market with their >> 802.16-2004 5.4-5.9 solution and are shipping in JULY, and expect FCC >> certification for their 802.16-2004 >> product for 4.9 Ghz as well in July! I am very excited about this as the >> 3 plus >> years of waiting for a viable, wimax product in a band that everyone can >> deploy >> in will be available. >> >> >> So, while the equipment has not been ratified by the Wimax forum as >> of yet, ( and they havent even decided when they will be certifying >> vendors ) this product will be either complaint as is or will require >> a minor software upgrade for >> Wimax >> forum certified compatiability, assuming that the forum go with the >> 802.16-2004 spec as planned. >> >> some notes on the product: >> >> initial pricing expected to be very reasonably priced on the AP side >> of things, >> >> >>> 600.00 / cpe >>> >>> >> >> 35 mb / sector real world throughput @ 64 QAM >> >> full service flow integration for QOS >> >> can be used in either 5 mhz channel size or 10 mhz channel >> >> zero truck roll CPE ( users can easily install the equipment ) >> >> full blown FCAPS compliant NMS ( Fault monitoring configuration >> authentication provisioning security ) >> >> >> color me excited :) >> >> - >> >> Jeff >> >> -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] looking for a device
I think Jon is asking about the "double VLAN" -- or a "q in q" implementation It's extremely useful for creating virtual bridged customer networks -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Harnish Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 9:10 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] looking for a device Virtual LAN. Imagine segregating segments of your network across a backhaul pipe so that they flow together but don't actually see each other. Managed switches have the ability to create VLANs per port. Think of it as a merger between routing and switching. Its a pipe or several inside a pipe. Tried to be simple here, I'm sure someone else can give you a more technical description. Rick Harnish President OnlyInternet Broadband & Wireless, Inc. 260-827-2482 Office 260-307-4000 Cell 260-918-4340 VoIP www.oibw.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 9:39 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] looking for a device Can you or someone explain what double VLAN is? I have never heard of such a thing. How can it be used to help us? Thanks, Scriv > > Yo may want to look at Alvarion. Alvarion does support VLAN. new > Firmware4 supports double VLAN also. > Alvarion used to have one model that was designed to have a second > integrated radio into it. > I can't remember if it was a 900/2.4 combo, or a 5.8/2.4 combo. > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] looking for a device
Google (or Cisco) is your friend http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps5207/products_feature_guid e09186a00801f0f4a.html -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 8:39 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] looking for a device Can you or someone explain what double VLAN is? I have never heard of such a thing. How can it be used to help us? Thanks, Scriv > > Yo may want to look at Alvarion. Alvarion does support VLAN. new > Firmware4 supports double VLAN also. > Alvarion used to have one model that was designed to have a second > integrated radio into it. > I can't remember if it was a 900/2.4 combo, or a 5.8/2.4 combo. > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] looking for a device
It is worth noting that you lose the benefits of routing protocols when you bridge your network Sure, there's always RSTP... (heh) Many larger wireless / Wifi based architecture these days seem to be favoring a layer 3 tunneling / handoff method over a bridged layer 2 network -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 5:30 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] looking for a device To clarify The term I referred to as "Double VLAN" is not the technically correct name (thats just what I call it), it is actually called "Q in Q" as stated by several in this thread. One of the reasons this is valuable is for a wholesale network. It basically allows you to create a single VLAN end to end across your network for a subscriber or reseller, and still use VLAN for your local needs to operate your network. I'll give an example of where I might use VLAN for my network need. I have a single fiber connection from the basement to the roof. On the roof I have a VLAN switch and 6 sector radios. I have a router in the basement. I could then seperate data between the different radio traffic by giving a unique VLAN to the Ethernet port that each sector radio connects to, and route between them in my basement router. I'll give an example of where I'd use a VLAN end to end for a reseller. Reseller has a connection between me and them at one point on my network. The reseller might provide the backbone and IPs. The client routes the customers traffic to a specific VLAN when entering my network. I then have that VLAN configured across my network until reaches the end user's building router that terminates the VLAN. Now what happens when the resellers customer (example 2) resides in the building (example 1)? Normally two VLANs can't exist simultaneously as teh switch wouldn;t know which ID to tag data with. Q in Q VLAN would allow one VLAN ID to reside in side of another VLAN. Its the same concept as tunnelling, except for its not. Now how does this apply to radios that support Q in Q? Depends. Use your imagination. The first problem is can the radio pass Q in Q VLAN data? Second can it tag it? Being able to tag VLAN data at the radio level can be extremely useful. First off it avoids having to configure a second device (VLAN switch) that complicates the automation of configurations. Part of the Idea is that CLECs and Governement, are all high on Security, and they do not want to have to coordinate complex IP models between their systems and the wholesalers, instead they want to be able to send traffic LAyer2 and seperate traffic so one client does not have the abilty to see the other client's traffic. Its sort of an Ethernet way of doing a Private Virtual Circuit. The only problem with VLAN is you need to have every component of you network that passes VLANs to be able to pass large packets so Full MTU can be delivered to clients. This is one of the limits to Wifi and regular switches, is many Wifi devices and all non managed switches do not pass large packets. Radio like Trango and Alvarion (with Q in Q support) have the abilty to pass large packets. The other advantage of VLAN is that when used across a PtMP design and VLAN support at CPE, it allows doing remote banwdith management based on the customers circuit ID, and having a way to distinguish and differentiate the data. Q in Q, gives the provider flexibilty on how and when they would like to use VLAN and in multiple ways simultaneously. Its uncertain how Q in Q will be used for sure, as VLAN does add much complexity over say a basic bridged design. Part of the benefit, is that redundancy is not always supported in an ideal way when VLAN is used. By allowing a VLAN end to end encapsulated in the other packets, it potentially could allow avoiding the pitfalls that limit redundancy by having the end locations (the reseller and the client) the one tagging the VLAN and knowing that that VLAN info survives any other VLAN tagging that may happen on the network, or for that matter abilty for that data to route across paths that are not technically that VLAN assignment on the other layer. I'm not explaining this clearly, but that is the gist of it. The end result is, if a provider's whole network supports Q in Q, it allows them to compete with other fiber Metro-E services. Many believe that the design of the future for Metro deployments is to run MPLS at the edge devices, and then Q in Q VLAN inside the Metro Ethernet rings. The key ideas here is abilty to creaetequivelent of virtual circuits of Ethernet. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Charles
RE: [WISPA] looking for a device
Q in Q, means that the provider does not need to remove his VLAN tags. The customer's VLAN tags can survive teh VLAN tags that the provider adds. Customer has VLAN 10. Provider tags VLAN20 on top, crosses network as VLAN20 data, Provider untags VLAN20 data, packet delivered to customer on VLAN10 (as customer tagged it originally). A better example of the benefits of QnQ is customer / provider VLAN tagging conflicts For example Say the customer wants to pass VLAN#2 between 2 remote offices going through your network -- problem is, VLAN#2 happens to be your management VLAN -- so if you want to bridge the VLAN across your network, it won't work correctly unless someone (either you or the customer) gives up the VLAN#2 tag. QnQ solves this issue by encapsalating the customer VLAN (in this case, #2) in some arbitrarily assigned VLAN tag on the provider network That said, it seems like tunneling would be an easier solution...e.g L2TP or if you're a Mikrotik fan, EoIP -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 5:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] looking for a device An example of where its useful is... What if a customer has multiple locations in a Wide Area PtMP topology, and wants the data seperated? What if the Customer is another term for a wholesaler's reseller ISP? It gives the customer/reseller the abilty to segment with VLANs, without respect to what the provider may need to do with VLAN themselves. This example is a little different than My last post, as noth VLAN taggers may have their VLAN IDs pass multiple network segments. But the poitn is, it doesn;t matter how dual VLANs are used, the flexibilty is there for a Provider to take advantage of however they feel fit. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Eric Rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 12:51 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] looking for a device It is also referred as 802.1q tagging... If it supports multiple layers, you can have a customer VLAN tags within your network VLAN tags. Just need your equipment that takes off your tags before it gets to the customer. AT&T uses the Cisco 3750 switches to do it at the customer's premises. Then the customer can have VLAN 10 at one location and VLAN 10 at another, and it is completely transparent to the end user. If that made sense. Eric -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Wu Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 11:34 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] looking for a device Google (or Cisco) is your friend http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps5207/products_feature_ guid e09186a00801f0f4a.html -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 8:39 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] looking for a device Can you or someone explain what double VLAN is? I have never heard of such a thing. How can it be used to help us? Thanks, Scriv > > Yo may want to look at Alvarion. Alvarion does support VLAN. new > Firmware4 supports double VLAN also. Alvarion used to have one model > that was designed to have a second integrated radio into it. > I can't remember if it was a 900/2.4 combo, or a 5.8/2.4 combo. > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
Hi Patrick, For clarification purposes -- 70 Mbps is achievable only in Turbo mode (40 Mhz channel sizes) correct? Also -- will it support a "slim" 5 or 10 Mhz channel mode? -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 8:13 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from beta testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a link is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska told me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001). The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version (antenna built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp terrain. We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul. It is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to install backhaul for a very moderate price. Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail. Patrick -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Dual WAN Routers
Title: Message are you planning on getting your customer an AS & running BGP? if not -- and you're willing to roll up your sleaves a bit, you can "hack it" w/ some Mikrotik scripting (In my ISP days, one of my customers back in 2002/2003, Larry Yunker actually, was doing this b/n our connection and a Verio T1) -- not perfect, b/c you'd have to "NAT" the backup link, but it kinda works -Charles ---CWLabTechnology Architectshttp://www.cwlab.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bo HamiltonSent: Monday, June 19, 2006 9:05 AMTo: WISPA General ListSubject: [WISPA] Dual WAN Routers Hello fellow list dwellers! I'm in the market for a dual WAN router. Could I get some feedback on the some that you guys and gals are using. I have some clients using me as a backup for their T1's, so Im just trying to find out wich one's are the best to go with. thanks, Bo Hamilton NCOWirless.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Dual WAN Routers
Title: Message it's a bit more complicated than OSPF if you're trying to backup ANOTHER provider's connection (assuming separate ASes, etc) -Charles P.S. -- ASes = Plural for Autonamous Systems, not that other dirty word =/ ---CWLabTechnology Architectshttp://www.cwlab.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mac DearmanSent: Monday, June 19, 2006 10:03 AMTo: 'WISPA General List'Subject: RE: [WISPA] Dual WAN Routers Bo, I would use a MikroTik box in an indoor enclosure, The RB532 w/64Megs of ram running OSPF would be easy, fast and as reliable as anything I know. Another solution if you were looking for a rack mount set up would be to get a Cisco router and drop a couple modules in it and do their version of OSPF. You can generally find a good price on some used (but guaranteed) Cisco gear on eBay at a nice price. Mac Dearman From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bo HamiltonSent: Monday, June 19, 2006 9:05 AMTo: WISPA General ListSubject: [WISPA] Dual WAN Routers Hello fellow list dwellers! I'm in the market for a dual WAN router. Could I get some feedback on the some that you guys and gals are using. I have some clients using me as a backup for their T1's, so Im just trying to find out wich one's are the best to go with. thanks, Bo Hamilton NCOWirless.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
Hi Tom, Not to add another "chink" to your debate -- but it is worth noting that Mikrotik is more of a "jack of all trades" solution (they do routing, hotspot, etc) than a wireless solution While they do an ok job w/ wireless, IMO, their strength is more the convenience coming from the integration of multiple packages and its flexibility rather than the performance of any single feature If you're looking at purely a "wireless" solution (in this "do-it-yourself" genre) -- you need to include Star-OS / Ikarus in your evaluation (but then, documentation gets a bit sparse there...) -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 5:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Paul, Although many have reported very high speeds with Mikrotik. Our live tests in noisy environments (wether accepted as accurate or not) showed we were not able to get the peak speeds out of Mikrotik where we could get them from Alvarion. Our comparative tests were done with the Alvarion ver 3 firmware (not 4 yet). The Alvarion speeds that we got were right on the numbers with the speeds test Alvarion tech support sent us. Actually our tested speeds were a bit higher in some some cases. (Take note we only got accurate speeds when we hard set modulation to optimal (picked the best one for the situation) modulation for testing). I do not mean this as a negative comment on Mikrotik. Our competition to Alvarion is NOT Trango, Trango does not yet have a 20 mbps product for PtMP. We look at our Trango as the best choice to tackle the worse noisy environments (for us almost everywhere :-) Our competition for Alvarion is actually Mikrotik. Mikrotik probably has the single highest value from a feature cost perspective. Why pay Alvarion price, when Mikrotik can do almost the same thing at a fraction of the cost. Mikrotik has changed this market and forced competing vendors to look at how to be more competitive. Mikrotik is doing what Trango did 4 years ago to drive the price down. (I'd argue that Trango is still doing it also). It will be real interesting to see how Alvarion performs side by side to Mikrotik. The initial look show to me that Alvarion adds significant features that make it the premium choice, possibly the leader in OFDM today, if price not part of the consideration. However, Mikrotik's flexibilty and price clearly will keep them a major player for many WISPs. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Paul Hendry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 3:45 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K > Are these figures in the lab? I have seen similar with a > Mikrotik/N-Streme solution. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Patrick Leary > Sent: 16 June 2006 19:57 > To: WISPA General List > Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for > under $ 6K > > So I have more data for you Matt I just received about what firmware > 4.0 delivers in terms of frame sizes and what it can mean to the > business case. Remember, this is multipoint, not PtP. All Mbps numbers > are NET > throughput: > > Frame size Upstream Mbps/FPS Downstream Mbps/FPS > 64 32.18/47893 40.29/59952 > 128 34.7/29308 43.79/36982 > 256 37.68/17065 45.03/20392 > 512 38.41/9025 45.51/10693 > 1024 37.02/4432 44.82/5366 > 1280 38.93/3743 45.99/4422 > 1518 36.69/2982 44.63/3627 > > This is a dramatic improvement, first in terms of net throughput the > numbers > are huge and I am pretty sure no other PMP system can get close to them. > But > the main accomplishment is a total leveling of capacity regardless of the > frame size. This results in much higher predictability and ability to > capacity plan. This takes net throughput over 700% higher using small > 64bit > frame than the previous version. Frankly it really is an exceptional > achievement that will enable operators to offer very high value services > even to large enterprise. With this version of BreezeACCESS VL an operator > could sell an 8 voice lines/6Mbps of data to 20 enterprise customers in a > single sector with a 5:1 over subscription with a voice MOS of 4.0 or > higher. And with a SOHO type service like 2 voice lines and 3Mbps of data > you could have 160 customers PER sector at a 20:1 over subscription. That > will produce some exceptional ARPU. > > Patrick Leary > AVP Marketing > Alvarion, Inc. > o: 650.314.2628 > c: 760.580.0080 > Vonage: 650.641.1243 > > -Original Message- > From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:47 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subje
RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
Title: Message Hi Stephen, Regarding performance gains, it is worth defining what is meant by that term, as it can be vague and extremely misleading For example, if my solution required a router, the fact that Mikrotik had built in routing, while Alvarion did not, could be interpreted just as much as being a "performance gain" as Alvarion being (according to Tom D) more "interference resistant" than Mikrotik In our context, I was referring to specifically the wireless context from a wireless standpoint, Mikrotik hasn't done anything IMO extraordinary (at least they have HAL access though =) -- testing raw aggregate throughput on Mikrotik point-to-point systems yields generally similar throughput and packet per second numbers as "stock" 11a solutions -- now Nstream does offer some nifty features, but those are more upper MAC related (e.g., polling to solve contention-based MAC allocation) This isn't meant to say that Mikrotik has a bad wireless driver, rather, IMO, Mikrotik's value-add is more its integration of multiple features (that many other products don't support) On the other hand, others, like Alvarion, Trango and Star-OS (we haven't finished testing Star-OS yet) -- have spent more effort diving into the HAL and RF hardware portion (in the case more so for Alvarion & Trango than Star-OS, which still utilizes cheap(er) off-the-shelf mini-PCIs) to optimize Rf & throughput performance of their Atheros based systems On a 11a chipset, Trango gets ~40 Mb, Alvarion gets ~30 Mb (though this may be changing w/ their new v4.0) and StarOS *supposedly* gets ~30 Mb That said, then there's the question of user need -- am I willing to sacrifice an additional 20-30% bandwidth efficiency and save additional in exchange for having a lot of other built-in nifty and useful features? -Charles ---CWLabTechnology Architectshttp://www.cwlab.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen PatrickSent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 2:45 PMTo: 'WISPA General List'Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Hi there, Not detracting from this great debate, but I'd have to make some Mikrotik comments at this point. We use their OS in our radios and the "end product" we have on the market does out-perform several well-known brands in terms of many parameters including throughput, stability and RX sensitivity. The "extras" (essentials for some customers) i.e. L3 features, wireless extensions, security add huge value and reduce total network cost as "extra boxes" suddenly vanish. Shameless plug, we not only offer completed products with warranty but training and full tech support (not the "e-mail us" variety: real people to speak to, on-site presence when it matters, etc). Of course Mikrotik "performance gains" might not apply if you were to take a "DIY approach": performance can be terrible on the wrong hardware, tech support absent and you wouldn't have vital (legally required) certifications either. But as a vendor having built and shipped wireless products that use RouterOS and hearing the (cynical and wireless savvy) customer feedback saying consistently "performance better than Brand X" even comparing a simple L2 wireless bridge then I'd have to voice support for the OS. Sure do compare with Star-OS and others; or a real DIY: build it from bare hardware and FreeBSD/Linux with WiFi drivers or whatever... but as this thread came from "vendor products" I thought it worth chipping in - just my £0.01's worth. Regards Stephen CableFree Solutions www.cablefreesolutions.com -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 20 June 2006 20:15 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Hi Tom, Not to add another "chink" to your debate -- but it is worth noting that Mikrotik is more of a "jack of all trades" solution (they do routing, hotspot, etc) than a wireless solution While they do an ok job w/ wireless, IMO, their strength is more the convenience coming from the integration of multiple packages and its flexibility rather than the performance of any single feature If you're looking at purely a "wireless" solution (in this "do-it-yourself" genre) -- you need to include Star-OS / Ikarus in your evaluation (but then, documentation gets a bit sparse there...) -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message
RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
With that asside, I guess it would be fair to consider StarOS, Ikarus, and Mikrotik as the same class product. I would disagree with you on that -- I cannot speak for Ikarus as of yet, but regarding StarOS & Mikrotik I have noticed the following about the 2 companies StarOS as primarily focused on wireless, and additional things (like routing, firewall, bandwidth management, etc) are more of an "afterthought" to support the wireless system Mikrotik is primarily focused on routing, and wireless seems to be another module in the router (though it is one of the more important aspects of the system) -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 6:44 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K I only mentioned Mikrotik as its abilty to pass large packets has been tested. I believe we couldn't do that with StarOS as a limitation of Wifi clients (although not positive, as I did not investigate WDS options on StarOS which allows the large packets and full passing bridge features.) I actually wanted to classify it by hardware class such as OEM Atheros products. But technically thatdefinition would include Alvarion. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 3:15 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Hi Tom, Not to add another "chink" to your debate -- but it is worth noting that Mikrotik is more of a "jack of all trades" solution (they do routing, hotspot, etc) than a wireless solution While they do an ok job w/ wireless, IMO, their strength is more the convenience coming from the integration of multiple packages and its flexibility rather than the performance of any single feature If you're looking at purely a "wireless" solution (in this "do-it-yourself" genre) -- you need to include Star-OS / Ikarus in your evaluation (but then, documentation gets a bit sparse there...) -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 5:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Paul, Although many have reported very high speeds with Mikrotik. Our live tests in noisy environments (wether accepted as accurate or not) showed we were not able to get the peak speeds out of Mikrotik where we could get them from Alvarion. Our comparative tests were done with the Alvarion ver 3 firmware (not 4 yet). The Alvarion speeds that we got were right on the numbers with the speeds test Alvarion tech support sent us. Actually our tested speeds were a bit higher in some some cases. (Take note we only got accurate speeds when we hard set modulation to optimal (picked the best one for the situation) modulation for testing). I do not mean this as a negative comment on Mikrotik. Our competition to Alvarion is NOT Trango, Trango does not yet have a 20 mbps product for PtMP. We look at our Trango as the best choice to tackle the worse noisy environments (for us almost everywhere :-) Our competition for Alvarion is actually Mikrotik. Mikrotik probably has the single highest value from a feature cost perspective. Why pay Alvarion price, when Mikrotik can do almost the same thing at a fraction of the cost. Mikrotik has changed this market and forced competing vendors to look at how to be more competitive. Mikrotik is doing what Trango did 4 years ago to drive the price down. (I'd argue that Trango is still doing it also). It will be real interesting to see how Alvarion performs side by side to Mikrotik. The initial look show to me that Alvarion adds significant features that make it the premium choice, possibly the leader in OFDM today, if price not part of the consideration. However, Mikrotik's flexibilty and price clearly will keep them a major player for many WISPs. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Paul Hendry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 3:45 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K > Are these figures in the lab? I have seen similar with a > Mikrotik/N-Streme solution. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Patrick Leary > S
RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
Title: Message Screenshot of NMS from full-speed lab testing, 83Mbps UDP traffic with ~20% CPU loadhttp://www.cablefreesolutions.com/radio/HPR%20lab%20testing%20UDP.pngScreenshot of NMS from full-speed lab testing, 74Mbps TCP/IP traffic with ~20% CPU loadhttp://www.cablefreesolutions.com/radio/HPR%20lab%20testing%20TCP.png Hi Steven, Wouldn't it be funny if the Alvarion product was actually Mikrotik Nstream? On or offlist, I am curious if you'd be willing to share your settings required to achieve this (both hardware and software) 38 Mbps TCP throughput on a 20 MHz channel w/ 54 Mb air rate is quite impressive, and I would like to try to duplicate these results if possible (I'd more than happy to share our testing scripts, platform, etc) Thus far, our Mikrotik testing has been limited to routerboards, and it seems that the limited processing power on the routerboard prevents us from seeing the benefits Nstream (our current testing w/ Nstream has actually shown decreased performance as opposed to just straight WDS bridging, but we are by no means Mikrotik experts) That said, compared to the rest of Mikrotik, the documentation surrounding Nstream is a bit sparse -- looking at what is available, it seems to me that most of the performance gains of Nstream are achieved through "fast-framing" -- e.g., it looks like Nstream utilizes combination of timing modications and frame concatenation to increase throughput by transmitting more data per frame and removing interframe pauses. My understanding of this is that Nstream is bundling several frames (depending on settings, default of 3200 looks like it has enough space for 2 frames) together into a single larger frame; in the case of 2 for 1 bundling, this would essentially halve the amount SIFs and ACKs that the protocol has to transmit for a given payload So a few observations/questions for either you (or maybe John will speak up?) 1. Nstream has the ability to set this framing concatenation mechanism (via framer-policy attribute) to none -- if this is set to 0, will there be any performance differences b/n Nstream and "standard WiFi" 2. What are the parameters for the framer-limit setting (if 3200 lets me concatenate 2 packets, wouldn't 5800 work even better as I would be able to concatenate 3 packets and eliminate additional overhead?) 3. While frame concatenation does improve throughput for low density situations -- in high density PtMP situations, we've seen multiple small packet streams basically bring polling-based systems to their knees -- is there any data, testing, experiences on this side w/ Nstream? 4. What about bursting? The DIF is another major point of "waste" in 802.11 systems. Is the DIFs automagically eliminated due to the fact that a point coordinator is being implemented or is this done via the burst-time command under the wireless interface? If so, is there a way to turn this off for point-to-point situations to achieve better performance? -Charles P.S. -- Our testing of StarOS using WDS bridging on the 266 MHz IXP Boards is yielding ~36 Mb of TCP throughput on a single 20 Mhz channel (this is w/ bursting & frame concatenation turned on) ---CWLabTechnology Architectshttp://www.cwlab.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
otik "performance gains" might not apply if you were to >take a "DIY approach": performance can be terrible on the wrong >hardware, tech support absent and you wouldn't have vital (legally >required) certifications either. > >But as a vendor having built and shipped wireless products that use >RouterOS and hearing the (cynical and wireless savvy) customer feedback >saying consistently "performance better than Brand X" even comparing a >simple L2 wireless bridge then I'd have to voice support for the OS. > >Sure do compare with Star-OS and others; or a real DIY: build it from >bare hardware and FreeBSD/Linux with WiFi drivers or whatever... but as >this thread came from "vendor products" I thought it worth chipping in >- just my £0.01's worth. > >Regards > >Stephen > >CableFree Solutions >www.cablefreesolutions.com > >-Original Message- >From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: 20 June 2006 20:15 >To: 'WISPA General List' >Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for >under $ 6K > > >Hi Tom, > >Not to add another "chink" to your debate -- but it is worth noting >that Mikrotik is more of a "jack of all trades" solution (they do >routing, hotspot, etc) than a wireless solution > >While they do an ok job w/ wireless, IMO, their strength is more the >convenience coming from the integration of multiple packages and its >flexibility rather than the performance of any single feature > >If you're looking at purely a "wireless" solution (in this >"do-it-yourself" >genre) -- you need to include Star-OS / Ikarus in your evaluation (but then, > >documentation gets a bit sparse there...) > >-Charles > >--- >CWLab >Technology Architects >http://www.cwlab.com > > > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Tom DeReggi >Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 5:37 PM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for >under $ 6K > > >Paul, > >Although many have reported very high speeds with Mikrotik. Our live >tests in noisy environments (wether accepted as accurate or not) showed >we were not able to get the peak speeds out of Mikrotik where we could >get them from > > >Alvarion. Our comparative tests were done with the Alvarion ver 3 >firmware (not 4 yet). The Alvarion speeds that we got were right on the >numbers with the speeds test Alvarion tech support sent us. Actually >our tested speeds were a bit higher in some some cases. (Take note we >only got accurate speeds when we hard set modulation to optimal (picked >the best one for the >situation) modulation for testing). > >I do not mean this as a negative comment on Mikrotik. Our competition >to Alvarion is NOT Trango, Trango does not yet have a 20 mbps product >for PtMP. > >We look at our Trango as the best choice to tackle the worse noisy >environments (for us almost everywhere :-) Our competition for Alvarion >is actually Mikrotik. > >Mikrotik probably has the single highest value from a feature cost >perspective. Why pay Alvarion price, when Mikrotik can do almost the >same thing at a fraction of the cost. Mikrotik has changed this market >and forced competing vendors to look at how to be more competitive. >Mikrotik is > > >doing what Trango did 4 years ago to drive the price down. (I'd argue >that Trango is still doing it also). > >It will be real interesting to see how Alvarion performs side by side >to Mikrotik. The initial look show to me that Alvarion adds significant >features that make it the premium choice, possibly the leader in OFDM >today, > > >if price not part of the consideration. However, Mikrotik's flexibilty >and price clearly will keep them a major player for many WISPs. > >Tom DeReggi >RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > >- Original Message - >From: "Paul Hendry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "'WISPA General List'" >Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 3:45 PM >Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for >under $ 6K > > > > Are these figures in the lab? I have seen similar with a > > Mikrotik/N-Streme solution. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Behalf Of Patrick Leary > > Sent: 16 June 2006 19:57 > > To: WISPA General List > > Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: abou
RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
fice an additional 20-30% bandwidth efficiency and save additional in exchange for having a lot of other built-in nifty and useful features? -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stephen Patrick Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 2:45 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Hi there, Not detracting from this great debate, but I'd have to make some Mikrotik comments at this point. We use their OS in our radios and the "end product" we have on the market does out-perform several well-known brands in terms of many parameters including throughput, stability and RX sensitivity. The "extras" (essentials for some customers) i.e. L3 features, wireless extensions, security add huge value and reduce total network cost as "extra boxes" suddenly vanish. Shameless plug, we not only offer completed products with warranty but training and full tech support (not the "e-mail us" variety: real people to speak to, on-site presence when it matters, etc). Of course Mikrotik "performance gains" might not apply if you were to take a "DIY approach": performance can be terrible on the wrong hardware, tech support absent and you wouldn't have vital (legally required) certifications either. But as a vendor having built and shipped wireless products that use RouterOS and hearing the (cynical and wireless savvy) customer feedback saying consistently "performance better than Brand X" even comparing a simple L2 wireless bridge then I'd have to voice support for the OS. Sure do compare with Star-OS and others; or a real DIY: build it from bare hardware and FreeBSD/Linux with WiFi drivers or whatever... but as this thread came from "vendor products" I thought it worth chipping in - just my £0.01's worth. Regards Stephen CableFree Solutions www.cablefreesolutions.com -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 20 June 2006 20:15 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Hi Tom, Not to add another "chink" to your debate -- but it is worth noting that Mikrotik is more of a "jack of all trades" solution (they do routing, hotspot, etc) than a wireless solution While they do an ok job w/ wireless, IMO, their strength is more the convenience coming from the integration of multiple packages and its flexibility rather than the performance of any single feature If you're looking at purely a "wireless" solution (in this "do-it-yourself" genre) -- you need to include Star-OS / Ikarus in your evaluation (but then, documentation gets a bit sparse there...) -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 5:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Paul, Although many have reported very high speeds with Mikrotik. Our live tests in noisy environments (wether accepted as accurate or not) showed we were not able to get the peak speeds out of Mikrotik where we could get them from Alvarion. Our comparative tests were done with the Alvarion ver 3 firmware (not 4 yet). The Alvarion speeds that we got were right on the numbers with the speeds test Alvarion tech support sent us. Actually our tested speeds were a bit higher in some some cases. (Take note we only got accurate speeds when we hard set modulation to optimal (picked the best one for the situation) modulation for testing). I do not mean this as a negative comment on Mikrotik. Our competition to Alvarion is NOT Trango, Trango does not yet have a 20 mbps product for PtMP. We look at our Trango as the best choice to tackle the worse noisy environments (for us almost everywhere :-) Our competition for Alvarion is actually Mikrotik. Mikrotik probably has the single highest value from a feature cost perspective. Why pay Alvarion price, when Mikrotik can do almost the same thing at a fraction of the cost. Mikrotik has changed this market and forced competing vendors to look at how to be more competitive. Mikrotik is doing what Trango did 4 years ago to drive the price down. (I'd argue that Trango is still doing it also). It will be real interesting to see how Alvarion performs side by side to Mikrotik. The initial look show to me that Alvarion adds significant features that make it the premium choice, possibly the leader in OFDM today, if price not part of the consideration. However, Mikr
RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
Title: Message >You mention MadWifi driver has three adaptive modulation methods. Do you know by any chance which one works best to work with UDP traffic? Given how different adaptive modulation methods are "optimized" differently for different environments/situations/noise sources -- all I can say is either pay me or RTFM there is very good documentation on how the 2nd 2 methods are "programmed" work http://madwifi.org/wiki/UserDocs/RateControl I would also recommend that you to some refresher reading on UDP http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc768.html -Charles P.S. -- this isn't meant to be offensive, but this is research that a manufacturer embarks on, as the average operator generally does not posess the requisite level of knowledge to comprehend networking at this level -- the manufacturer makes that 50-100% "value-add / markup / margin" for their work on this issue so that the operator can "hopefully" just plug-in-pray =) P.S.S. -- compared to the licensed / cellular wireless world, the vast majority of license-exempt interference mitigation techniques (e.g., ARQ / adaptive modulation / etc) aren't that great due to the fact that up until now most manufacturers have limited their interference testing to gaussian "white noise" conditions b/c the market is cheap ---CWLabTechnology Architectshttp://www.cwlab.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggiSent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 6:13 PMTo: WISPA General ListSubject: Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Charles, We have often found that to get adequate UDP performance without excessive packetloss, we need to turn off Adaptive modulation on 802.11 radios (and hard set it). Specifically, we have seen it with Alvarion. You mention MadWifi driver has three adaptive modulation methods. Do you know by any chance which one works best to work with UDP traffic? This was one of our concerns putting 802.11 gear in place of our Trango gear that we typically prefer because of its abilty to work as well with UDP as TCP. Of course, if Trango had PtMP gear with an External antenna CPE option, that also had non-beta ARQ firmware that didn't lock up constantly, we would not be wasting time on this topic. However they do not yet. So for these cases, we need to use Atheros. It would be nice to find an adaptive modulation/ARQ version that was UDP friendly. Can you offer any feedback on the topic? Tom DeReggiRapidDSL & Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Charles Wu To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 11:56 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Hi Travis, ARQ (which can mean anything) is standard for 802.11 -- (although changing / modifying ARQ mechanisms requires HAL access) A better illustrated example (which doesn't break any NDAs or reveal any major IP) can be shown via adaptive modulation The MADWiFi driver alone gives 3 options for different adaptive modulation schemes, onoe, amrr and sample, that can be chosen - some are better than othershttp://madwifi.org/wiki/UserDocs/RateControl -Charles P.S. -- just like ARQ, not all adaptive modulation schemes are created equal ---> in one case, we were able to improve a customer's radio performance by approximately 20% through tweaks in the adaptive modulation thresholds (in their case, they were being too conservative in their backoff of Ethernet traffic and forgetting about their lower level ARQ / FEC mechanisms) ---CWLabTechnology Architectshttp://www.cwlab.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis JohnsonSent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 7:14 PMTo: WISPA General ListSubject: Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6KCharles,The other "advantage" I have been told about Nstreme is it incorporates the equivalent of ARQ into the protocol. The other hidden advantage is it makes it impossible for people to sniff the air for my signals unless they are using another MT with Nstreme box. :)TravisMicroservCharles Wu wrote: Hi John, Right or wrong, in the context of throughput efficiency, the documentation I have seen regarding N-stream leads me to believe that frame concatenation is the main method utilized by the protocol. Would you care to expand
RE: [WISPA] 18Ghz through power lines?
It generally isn't an issue I'd be more worried about windmills -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Muehleisen Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 10:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] 18Ghz through power lines? Getting ready to deploy 18Ghz DragonWave links. However, in the middle of my path is a set of 4 power lines (no transformer). Has anyone had any experience with this? Here is my path: DragonWave master - - - - -1/4 mile / power lines - - - - - 3 miles DragonWave slave -Eric -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] www.fon.com - a threat to us all? - back to net neutrality
Title: Message out of curiosity (would like input from the pro net neutral people) -- would blocking something like FON constitute a violation of net neutrality? -Charles ---CWLabTechnology Architectshttp://www.cwlab.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick SmithSent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 8:41 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General ListSubject: [WISPA] www.fon.com - a threat to us all? Anyone seen FON ? This is insane. Anyone test one yet ? I want to know what network their hotspot runs back to, so I can block it Can someone that might have one throw a sniffer against it ? -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] $100 CPE?
And don't forget that it's WiFi vs. a proprietary engineered outdoor WISP protocol -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 11:23 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] $100 CPE? That they are working on "developing" a new product that will have bugs, hardware issues, etc. for the first 6-12 months. Trying to get to $100 (without antenna, BTW). Trango has a $149 unit that is from a company that is established, it has a built in antenna, PoE, etc. and is ready to go today. For $30 more, the range goes from 3 miles to 13 miles. ;) Travis Microserv Brian Rohrbacher wrote: > http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15749577 > > http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16364972 > > > > What does everyone think? > > > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] $100 CPE?
Cheap Taiwanese / Chinese / Foreign products also contain other "hidden costs" -- let's think conspiracy theories here =) There was a recent thread (on this list?) about Mikrotik RB532 boards spewing <1 Ghz OOB Noise when being powered w/ -48 VDC PoE (a faulty / cheap regulator -- wasn't following that closely) -- effectively taking down some ambulance communications service / etc What would happen when the DIY WISP deploys such a system -- and takes down some critical communications system, and on the extreme end, someone dies as a result of this -- then they investigate and you realize that you were inadvertently interfering w/ them by using an uncertified system... -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 11:08 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] $100 CPE? I am sure Charles and some are you are thinking the same thing I am on the 400mW unit, something just does not add up when manufactures are doing the same power and the cost of the card is the more then the cost of the full unit! I have not see this exact board but I have see a RTl8186 design that looks just like this one that's 80mW-100mW where the software was changed to output 400mW. When you use a basic power meter the "AVERAGE" power was 400mW but this is a false positive. With this setup the true power output of the DSSS channel did not go up very much. What did go up was the side lobes (2nd to 5th!) where on channel 6 it took up a full 70Mhz where is can only use 20Mhz! An basic average power meter looks at the full band when taking a power reading which is confusing if you do not have a SA to back up the info. Look at the spec what did no look right was the power output of the OFDM (13.5dBm) vs. the DSSS (26dBm). If they where using a PA is would amp both in DSSS and OFDM modes equally, which is why I think they are just changing the firmware to increase the power on DSSS only. Looking at all the RTL8186 designs I have seen over the past 24 months 13.5 OFDM is 18-20dBm DSSS not 400mW We will have to wait in see what the true case is, most of the WISP that have been in this for a year or so have some type of SA and can do a basic level test to see for themselves. We of course plan on getting one and doing our own level of testing using high end Agilent to test QAM, spectral mask, EVM etc and see what this unit truly is. Bottom line if this is a software patch and not designed to a true 400mW its going to adversely effect WISP network in a major way. Sincerely, Tony Morella Demarc Technology Group, A Wireless Solution Provider Office: 207-667-7583 Fax: 207-433-1008 http://www.demarctech.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Wu Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 10:32 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] $100 CPE? And don't forget that it's WiFi vs. a proprietary engineered outdoor WISP protocol -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 11:23 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] $100 CPE? That they are working on "developing" a new product that will have bugs, hardware issues, etc. for the first 6-12 months. Trying to get to $100 (without antenna, BTW). Trango has a $149 unit that is from a company that is established, it has a built in antenna, PoE, etc. and is ready to go today. For $30 more, the range goes from 3 miles to 13 miles. ;) Travis Microserv Brian Rohrbacher wrote: > http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15749577 > > http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16364972 > > > > What does everyone think? > > > -- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] EarthLink Unwires Anaheim, Announces Wholesale Program
>a whole 49 square feet, eh ? Real hard. :) Some interesting thoughts for Friday I forget the exact numbers, but Tropos recommends something like 20 APs / square mile to get 95% coverage at b/g rates 49 square miles = 49*20 ~ 960 Aps Part# MTR-52103000-500AA is a 500 pack of HotZone Aps on their price sheet that goes for about $1.5 million list So that's $3 million in Aps -- for simplicity -- lets assume that mounting hardware, power taps, etc is equal to the equivalent in discount Then we need to add in the additional infrastructure, like backhaul SMs, Routers, Servers, etc and the services required to install / implement the system... Experience from a similar type deployment (~40 square miles) pegs the entire project at about $5 million for E,F&I Market Data: Census information puts Anaheim w/ a population of 328k people (97k households) Median income for a household is $47k According to the March 2006 PEW Internet report -- in 2006, 46% of the population that makes between $30-75k / year have broadband at home So the total addressable broadband market in Anaheim is 46k subscribers of which 99% today are probably using some sort of landline cable / dsl broadband solution that is bundled together w/ their TV/phone service With a 10% penetration rate (that's ~5k subscribers) -- total revenue comes out to about $110k / month Assuming ZERO marketing, provisioning, customer service, bandwidth, support, repair costs -- the breakeven point for this system is 5 years (ouch) Lets look at fixed wireless 49 square miles is basically equivalent to a 4 mile ring around a tower Remember Area = (Pie)(R)^2 A = 3.14*4^2 A Canopy SM (averaged b/n 900 & 5 Ghz) costs about $300 complete (w/ antenna, mounting hardware, power supply, etc) A Canopy AP costs about $2k complete (dividing up GPS sync, etc) 5k Canopy SMs would cost me about $1.5 million The associated install costs (@ $50 / install) costs about $250k At 50 SMs / AP -- the AP costs runs around $250k Infrastructure / Hardware / Switches / Site Ac / Engineering / etc would cost about $100k (remember -- this is only a 4 mile radius =) Interesting Thoughts: Moto-Mesh System Cost to service 5k customers within 49 square miles: $5 million Canopy Fixed Wireless System Cost to service 5k customers within 49 square miles: $2.5 million Hrm... -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Smith Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 6:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] EarthLink Unwires Anaheim, Announces Wholesale Program -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter R. Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 12:19 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] EarthLink Unwires Anaheim, Announces Wholesale Program EarthLink Unwires Anaheim, Announces Wholesale Program By Tara Seals Posted on: 06/29/2006 EarthLink Inc. launched a municipal Wi-Fi broadband network in Anaheim, Calif., and announced a wholesale Wi-Fi access strategy on Thursday. EarthLink has won bids in several cities to provide citywide wireless Internet access, including Philadelphia and San Francisco, but Anaheim is its first commercial launch. It's also the first piece of a strategy to create a nationwide footprint of municipal Wi-Fi networks by tying together all EarthLink municipal markets under one service. Hand in hand with creating the footprint will be an open-access wholesale program. The ISP already has two national wholesale partners, announced today: PeoplePC Inc., EarthLink's wholly owned subsidiary, and DIRECTV. It also plans to partner with local ISPs that want to provide Wi-Fi service in their respective markets. The portable, wireless service will provide high-speed Internet access for residents, businesses, visitors and municipal employees. Anaheim's 49-square-foot buildout is expected to be completed by the fourth quarter. Curt Pringle, the mayor of the city, officially unwired the city at a wire-cutting ceremony this morning. "The days when Anaheim residents, workers and visitors are tied to a desk to access an affordable broadband network are coming to an end," said Garry Betty, president and CEO of EarthLink. "The launch of this network enables people to make a choice about how, and from where, they want to access the Internet securely." For $21.95 a month, Anaheim subscribers receive eight mailboxes and protection tools such as a spam blocker and security, and will be able to access the Internet from across the municipality, whether sitting in a park, at a café or elsewhere. Customers also can purchase a Wi-Fi modem for at-home use. In addition, EarthLink has reached a nonbinding agreement with AOL LLC and is discussing ways to offer its AOL.com content and Web assets on the municipal footprint. The network also will serve city department
RE: [WISPA] EarthLink Unwires Anaheim, Announces Wholesale Program
Hi Tom, The WHOLE PURPOSE of a WiFi Mesh Network Strategy is to AVOID THE COST OF THE CPE & TRUCK ROLL Now -- whether this theory works in practice is a whole nother issue -Charles P.S. FWIW - personally, I find the the concept (from an ROI perspective) of a service provider WiFi mesh to be a bit far-fetched, but then again, 10 years ago, I told the founder of half.com that you was bonkers, and proceded to get into the wireless biz =/ --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 3:03 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] EarthLink Unwires Anaheim, Announces Wholesale Program The primary difference being that in the Canopy Fixed Wireless you are including end user CPE. The largest cost to detur take rate when WISPS make subs pay for it. Its likely that one can assume that many of the subscribers will need to install outdoor equipment (adding $100-$300 BUCKS), to reliably connect to the mesh. So you could easilly add $1.5 million to the mesh cost for CPE, or remove $1.5million from the Fix Wireless plan if you were going to compare apples to apples. What Mesh still has on its side is mobility. The question is what value should a WISP put on that. Mobility can be easilly be the reason to justify why a muni should support a oublic interest project. (cable and DSL go to the home but NOT mobile for teh community to share.). Mobilty also allow Muni type applications, such as to support travelling users (commerce), or Mobile government work force. Mesh also gives Muni bargining power in the deployment, as it uses an asset of value that the governement has to trade and offer (easements, light poles, and power from them). In a Fixed Wireless deployment it could easilly be argued that teh givernemnt has little assets of value to the provider. Its usually the independant property owners tht have the preferred assets for signal distribution. For example, in my county, I am allowed free access to city infrastructure as a requirement that allowed tower building restrictions to be passed years ago. But yet I chose to pay for broadcast sites, because teh Governement do not own the best sites that are advantageous to me. Part of my point is that its not jsut the radios costs that are relevant. I'm starting to think that the Tropos, use all verticle, use only one channel all across the network, design may not be to bad an ideas after all. If it solves the challenge to get mobility well, and does not work well for subs inside their homes, it still allows lots of spectrum for the high quality Fixed Wireless providers. Part of the arguement is that its possible that MESH may be the only way to get mobilty well. And maybe the answer is to deliver it with the least impact on everyone else. Of course Alvarion mobile products have shown otherwise for vehichle mobile solutions. So what would happen if more Fixed Wireless manufacturers made Mobile CPEs? Would it get rid of some of teh need of mesh? Sure mesh gives person/laptop mobility, but will any one really use it? There is a good arguement that if usage of hotspots is low in public areas (parks, cafes, etc) it would be even lower on the streets and such. There is still very little evidence that communities will get the MESH signal insidet heir home reliably without external CPE equipment. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 1:43 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] EarthLink Unwires Anaheim, Announces Wholesale Program >a whole 49 square feet, eh ? Real hard. :) Some interesting thoughts for Friday I forget the exact numbers, but Tropos recommends something like 20 APs / square mile to get 95% coverage at b/g rates 49 square miles = 49*20 ~ 960 Aps Part# MTR-52103000-500AA is a 500 pack of HotZone Aps on their price sheet that goes for about $1.5 million list So that's $3 million in Aps -- for simplicity -- lets assume that mounting hardware, power taps, etc is equal to the equivalent in discount Then we need to add in the additional infrastructure, like backhaul SMs, Routers, Servers, etc and the services required to install / implement the system... Experience from a similar type deployment (~40 square miles) pegs the entire project at about $5 million for E,F&I Market Data: Census information puts Anaheim w/ a population of 328k people (97k households) Median income for a household is $47k According to the March 2006 PEW Internet report -- in 2006, 46% of the population that makes between $30-75k / year have broadband at home So the total addressable broadband market in Anaheim is 46k subscribers of which 9
RE: [WISPA] 900 radio
More importantly -- from a cochannel and receiver sensitivity perspective -- FH doesn't get the processing gain benefits of "spread" spectrum -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Butch Evans Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 11:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 900 radio On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Blair Davis wrote: >Hoppers don't play nice with Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum. On >the other hand, hoppers can get through more noise While this is almost accurate, it is not exacly right. FHSS can cause serious problems for a DSSS system, as the hopper runs across the band. HOWEVER, DSSS will trash about 30% of that spectrum for the hopper. (At least that is the approximate ratio for the 2.4GHz range.) Having said that, FHSS in 900 DOES make a lot of sense, so long as you have the ability to choose where it hops. -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting 573-276-2879 http://www.butchevans.com/ Mikrotik Certified Consultant (http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] 900 radio
>This is true as well. Just one more tradeoff fo FHSS. You should note that this is ~10 dB of receive sensitivty worth of trade-off (IMO -- pretty big) -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Butch Evans Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 6:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] 900 radio On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Charles Wu wrote: >More importantly -- from a cochannel and receiver sensitivity >perspective -- FH doesn't get the processing gain benefits of >"spread" spectrum -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting 573-276-2879 http://www.butchevans.com/ Mikrotik Certified Consultant (http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Help Needed PtP Links
Hi Patrick How did you guys measure throughput? TCP / UDP / Smartbits? Inquiring minds would like to know -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 2:28 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Help Needed PtP Links No. We tend to be RF purists (for better or worse) and components that have so wide a frequency range have poorer performance. It is a trade off for sure, but that is why we have not built such a system. As to channelization, it is 40MHz. Our goal was to offer high performance, very high quality, great simplicity, and at a very moderate price. This is not trying to be an Orthogon Spectra and even Redline AN-50 -- WISP already have those options if you have the need and the money. The BreezeNET B series offers a fully featured product with "right-sized" capacity at very modest cost. The BNET's offer Toyota quality, BMW performance, but at a Chevy price. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Brad Belton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 12:32 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Help Needed PtP Links Oh, one last thing...can the B100 tune to 5.3GHz as well as 5.8GHz? Best, Brad -Original Message- From: Brad Belton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 2:30 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Help Needed PtP Links Hello Patrick, Were the 62 & 80Mbps results using a 20MHz channel or a 40MHz channel? Regardless those are nice numbers. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 2:00 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Help Needed PtP Links Jory (et al), Take a look at our new B100, an addition to popular B14 and B28 BreezeNET backhaul/bridging line. Lots of people here can give you feedback on the B14 & B28. Feedback from the field on the B100 has provided some really strong results: 62 Mbps sustained NET throughput at 16 miles 80 Mbps sustained NET throughput at 1 mile It is a very simple product to install and is highly integrated. The B100 comes with external antenna ports. List price is less than $8K (many here can chime in with expected discounts to give you an expectation of "street price." Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Jory Privett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 11:57 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Help Needed PtP Links I am starting to do some upgrades to my network and need some new Point to Point links. I currently use an Orthogon Gemini Lite for a long link that I have. These new links are shorter with good LOS. I want the reliability of the Orthogon without the large price tag. These links will be about 15 Miles and I need a actual throughput of about 10M I have been looking at the SR5 radio from Mikrotik. Will the SR5 be able to do this reliably? I want some real world info here and not just marketing hype. Does anyone have links like this with the SR5? What antenna are you using? How is the performance? Jory Privett WCCS -- 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(191). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(42). -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- 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(192). *
RE: [WISPA] New WISPA Vendor Member
Title: Message maybe you're a customer and just don't know it -Charles ---CWLabTechnology Architectshttp://www.cwlab.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gino A. VillariniSent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 8:30 PMTo: 'WISPA General List'Subject: RE: [WISPA] New WISPA Vendor Member 2,500 radios in Puerto Rico……..who’s that ? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John ScrivnerSent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 9:23 PMTo: wireless@wispa.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [WISPA] New WISPA Vendor Member I would like to take this opportunity to introduce a new WISPA Vendor Member to our organization. Optivon has paid their dues and has made it official. They want to work with all of the WISP industry and help support our efforts through WISPA. I am sure I speak for us all in welcoming them to WISPA. If you have a desire to offer VOIP for your customers then consider giving Optivon a shot at your business. After all, they are the first VOIP vendor to actually build their business plan around working with WISPs like you and support our association. I will be talking to them for my own network's VOIP needs. I hope you all do the same. Here is some information about Optivon: Optivon is a facilities based VoIP applications services provider located in Tampa, FL and San Juan, Puerto Rico. We provide hosted services to local exchange carriers, wireless Internet service providers, and other carriers. Our hosted services include IP Centrex/Hosted PBX, Residential VoIP, IP Trunking and other applications. Through various providers, we can offer a very large nationwide local footprint of DID and toll free numbers with E911 service. If you prefer, for increased margins, we can work with you in helping you operate your own local PSTN connections. This is especially attractive for internationally based carriers. We also offer you attractive domestic and international termination rates. Through our CLEC subsidiary in Puerto Rico, we can provide DID origination and termination. Our platform is based on a carrier class tandem softswitch and a Tekelec 6000 (formerly Vocal Data) applications service platform, which is located in a "bunker type" central office facility for increased network reliability. We have a good understanding of wireless data networks, having operated one. Among our customers for hosted VoIP services are a WISP in Tampa that is expanding into Atlanta and South Florida, another in Connecticut, and one that has 2,500 radios installed in Puerto Rico. We provide service to the largest telephone operating company in the World and to small WISP operators. Different than other providers, Optivon is prepared to work with you providing not only the VoIP services, but also sales and engineering support to help you succeed. Also, we will not compete against you. We only sell our services in the USA through carriers. Please visit our web site at www.optivon.com/us to learn more about our services or contact Rafael Morales at the following address: Optivon Inc. Rafael Morales VP Operations 6304 Benjamin Rd. Suite 514 Tampa, FL 33634 Tel: 813-600-6090 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] 6 gig license
1. yes 2. Part 101 (Same as 11, 18, 23) 3. yes --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 10:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] 6 gig license Is there anybody on this list operating a 6 gig link? I'm wondering how the licensing works? Can multiple operators run 6 gig in the same area? -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org 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 Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] 6 gig license
Check out: http://www.shorecliffcommunications.com/magazine/volume.asp?Vol=39&story=365 -Charles P.S. -- we also do frequency coordination --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 11:12 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 6 gig license 6GHz is licensed from the FCC on a link by link basis. Keep in mind the FCC typically requires a 6' or larger antenna on each side of the link for 6GHz. Try contacting www.comsearch.com or someone similar to learn more about the process. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 10:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] 6 gig license Is there anybody on this list operating a 6 gig link? I'm wondering how the licensing works? Can multiple operators run 6 gig in the same area? -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org 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 Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Sparkplug scales with broadband wireless buzz
I personally know them, and FWIW there's a lot of bark there... -Charles --- WiNOG Wireless Roadshows Coming to a City Near You http://www.winog.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter R. Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006 2:07 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Sparkplug scales with broadband wireless buzz http://telephonyonline.com/mag/telecom_sparkplug_scales_broadband/ Sparkplug scales with broadband wireless buzz By Dan O'Shea Jul 17, 2006 12:00 AM If it's any indication of what may come for the broadband wireless market, several of the companies making news in the sector recently are guided by veterans of McCaw Cellular, the company that turned the mobile industry into a fiercely competitive national market. These include service providers Clearwire and Nextlink, but don't forget about Sparkplug, a small broadband wireless service provider based in Chicago that is beginning to make more noise on the broadband wireless scene. The company, which is headed by McCaw vets Bill Malloy, Sparkplug's CEO, and Steve Hooper, the company's chairman, last week announced that it has merged with two other regional service providers - Prairie iNet in Des Moines, Iowa, and Telespectra in Scottsdale, Ariz. Under Sparkplug's post-merger structure, Malloy will lead the organization as CEO, along with senior executives Jeff Hardesty, currently CEO of Telespectra; and Neil Mulholland, CEO and founder of Prairie iNet. Malloy said he's known both Mulholland and Hardesty for several years. The resulting company will operate under the Sparkplug name and combine Sparkplug's markets of Chicago and Nashville; several Midwest markets served by Prairie iNet; and Telespectra's networks in the Southwest covering Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Southern California. "We're all wireless guys from way back, and if you look at what's been happening the last few years with broadband wireless, we're finally at the point where the technology is meeting up with customer needs," Malloy said. The merger of the three companies was led by venture capital firm Ignition Partners, in which Malloy is a venture partner and Hooper is a founding partner. Malloy said the companies merged to chase a common market of business customers with specific needs, including the potential of growing businesses to increasingly use broadband wireless to communicate among multiple branches and offices in different markets. "As businesses deploy more IP-based services that are mission-critical, scaleable high-quality committed bandwidth is a key enabler," said Hardesty in a statement. "This merger lets us extend our operational expertise in meeting these needs to more business customers across the combined company." However, Malloy said that the beefed-up Sparkplug also will watch for other merger and acquisition opportunities. "There's no secret that there's a lot of consolidation in this market, and is this deal being put together to go and do more merging and partnering? That's certainly something we'll look at," he said. Broadband wireless market consolidation has been top of mind for the last few years, as the technology has gained credibility, and investors and potential investors have looked at how to encourage scalability and consistency in a market characterized by hundreds of Mom-and-Pop wireless ISPs. Companies like California-based NextWeb and Texas-based AirBand Communications have driven much of the consolidation early on, and NextWeb itself was acquired by Covad Communications last year. Sparkplug is operating in both licensed and license-exempt frequencies. Its licenses are in the ranges of 6 GHz, 11 GHz and 18 GHz, license-exempt operations include 5.2 GHz and 5.7 GHz. These frequencies, with the exception of 5.7 GHz, aren't currently being considered for WiMAX certification, but Malloy isn't feeling left out. "Five or six years ago, we began to study WiMAX very deeply because we were the guys who genuflected at the altar of licensed technology," he said. "But we have been impressed by what we have been able to do in the unlicensed frequencies to make this work and meet customer needs. We are going to see WiMAX in our future at some point, but for now, it's not something that we're worrying about." -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
