Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Patrick Leary]

It is not a dick question; it is healthy skepticism and I appreciate this is 
often an issue with you specifically, but these are not merely concepts 
rattling around in our heads, but elements of the standard. There does not need 
to be a viable working prototype for a roadmap item to be real. In the end, the 
market will decide if it can trust us and our word or not. We will slip in 
timeframe on some items, accelerate others and if something gets pulled off a 
roadmap and I hear about it, those on the lists will know. That's really all I 
can say and I appreciate it may not be enough to satisfy you until time proves 
us out.

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image001.png@01D05734.B2FDAE70]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of That One Guy
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 11:03 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

not to be a dick about it, but this statement is eerily reminiscent to the B 
uplink promise on 320 SMs. Does the CPE prototype physically exist and function?

 
 

This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer 
viruses.

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[That One Guy]

not to be a dick about it, but this statement is eerily reminiscent to the
B uplink promise on 320 SMs. Does the CPE prototype physically exist and
function?

On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 7:18 AM, Patrick Leary 
wrote:

>  The current cat 4 CPE will support upcoming MU-MIMO, so it will still
> enjoy doubling of its current UL even without QAM256 in the CPE. The next
> CPE will debut at some point this year I am told. I do not know what
> category it will be. We are trying to get as high up as we can.
>
>
>
> *Patrick Leary*
>
> *M* 727.501.3735
>
> <http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Gino Villarini
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 05, 2015 8:14 AM
>
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
>
>
>
> Patrick, what is the roadmap on the CPE? CAt6 coming soon?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Gino A. Villarini
>
> President
>
> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
>
> www.aeronetpr.com
>
> @aeronetpr
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Patrick Leary 
> *Reply-To: *"af@afmug.com" 
> *Date: *Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 7:58 AM
> *To: *"af@afmug.com" 
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
>
>
>
> I have confirmed. the current base stations can be upgraded and will be
> upgraded to QAM 256. Your sales rep is incorrect unless he is referring to
> the current category 4 CPE.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID*
>
> On Mar 5, 2015 3:01 AM, Stefan Englhardt  wrote:
>
> Your sales director EMEA.
> So marketing might be more cautious here ;-))
>
>
> >Please send me a name, offlist. My understanding has been otherwise and
> very clearly so. I am going to verify though.
> >
> >Patrick Leary
> > M 727.501.3735
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf
> Of Stefan Englhardt
> >Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 4:21 PM
> >To: af@afmug.com
> >Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
> >
> >My Telrad contact told me that the actual HW is not upgradable to 256 QAM.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> 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.
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> 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.
>
> 
>
>


-- 
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

[Patrick Leary]

Understood. Yes, it's lineage of the PHY is WLAN. Our lineage is WMAN. Which is 
more aligned with what you do is my question Shayne.
Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image001.png@01D05730.A60BC3E0]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Shayne Lebrun
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 10:23 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

Note that Cambium radios are, with two excpetions off the top of my head, SDR.  
In theory, Cambium could reprogram a 450 SM to talk 802.11 if they wanted.

ePMP are not SDR.  They have an 802.11 chip, and they will never not speak a 
dialect of 802.11.

When they were originally talking about their WiMAX offerings, there was talk 
that it would eventually have a non-WiMAX firmware load.  I.E. would be SDR.  
Then they rebranded some Gemtek radios, and told people to stop asking about a 
'Canopy' protocol firmware load.  In other  words, not SDR.

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2015 2:27 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

That's the understanding of the term that I share. Thank you Jon.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
On Mar 4, 2015 2:15 PM, Jon Auer mailto:j...@tapodi.net>> 
wrote:
Purewave claiming SDR because they can add proprietary extensions seems like 
Ubiquiti claiming to be SDR because they licensed Atheros driver code so they 
could make AirMax.

I always thought SDR meant the signal processing, anything to do with making 
sense of the RF, happened in software (FPGA counts!). Ettus Research's USRP is 
a example on TX/RX. RTL-SDR USB sticks on the RX only.
E.g. If, in theory, the manufacturer can reprogram it to be a FM radio (maybe 
you replace the transciever/amps first though).

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Ken Hohhof 
mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote:
Why is it not software defined?  Because DAN owned the core WIMAX software? 
Purewave claimed to have purchased the rights to make their own mods, that was 
one of their claimed advantages over PMP320.  Not sure what Mercury would say 
now.  But don't they have a proprietary enhanced (but not LTE) version now?  I 
don't see how they do that if it's not a SDR.

I assume we are talking about the part of Purewave that went to Mercury, not 
the part that went to Redline.

If you mean was it designed to do both WIMAX and LTE with just a different 
software load, no, they never claimed that AFAIK.


-Original Message- From: Stefan Englhardt
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 12:30 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

PW is not SDR based

So call their Distributors and tell them to change their announcements.
Just google Purwave and SDR and you find some.







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.






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.

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

[Shayne Lebrun]

Note that Cambium radios are, with two excpetions off the top of my head,
SDR.  In theory, Cambium could reprogram a 450 SM to talk 802.11 if they
wanted.

 

ePMP are not SDR.  They have an 802.11 chip, and they will never not speak a
dialect of 802.11.

 

When they were originally talking about their WiMAX offerings, there was
talk that it would eventually have a non-WiMAX firmware load.  I.E. would be
SDR.  Then they rebranded some Gemtek radios, and told people to stop asking
about a 'Canopy' protocol firmware load.  In other  words, not SDR.

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2015 2:27 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

 

That's the understanding of the term that I share. Thank you Jon.

 

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID

On Mar 4, 2015 2:15 PM, Jon Auer  wrote:

Purewave claiming SDR because they can add proprietary extensions seems like
Ubiquiti claiming to be SDR because they licensed Atheros driver code so
they could make AirMax. 

 

I always thought SDR meant the signal processing, anything to do with making
sense of the RF, happened in software (FPGA counts!). Ettus Research's USRP
is a example on TX/RX. RTL-SDR USB sticks on the RX only. 

E.g. If, in theory, the manufacturer can reprogram it to be a FM radio
(maybe you replace the transciever/amps first though).

 

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

Why is it not software defined?  Because DAN owned the core WIMAX software?
Purewave claimed to have purchased the rights to make their own mods, that
was one of their claimed advantages over PMP320.  Not sure what Mercury
would say now.  But don't they have a proprietary enhanced (but not LTE)
version now?  I don't see how they do that if it's not a SDR.

I assume we are talking about the part of Purewave that went to Mercury, not
the part that went to Redline.

If you mean was it designed to do both WIMAX and LTE with just a different
software load, no, they never claimed that AFAIK.


-Original Message- From: Stefan Englhardt
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 12:30 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary) 





PW is not SDR based


So call their Distributors and tell them to change their announcements.
Just google Purwave and SDR and you find some.





 






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.

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Jon Langeler]

can we see the full chart?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 5, 2015, at 8:27 AM, Patrick Leary  wrote:
> 
> Understood, but it's UL still doubles under MU-MIMO. See below the numbers in 
> red the current CPE cannot achieve under its current limit being a cat 4 
> chipset in the CPE. BUT the numbers NOT in red still double under MU-MIMO.
>  
> 
>  
> Patrick Leary
> M 727.501.3735
> 
>  
>  
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini
> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 8:23 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
>  
> The AP will support Mumimo. on the CPE, it doesn’t matter.  But Cat4 CPEs 
> only Tx at 16qam on 1 stream, they are not mimo on the upload…
>  
>  
>  
> Gino A. Villarini
> President
> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
> www.aeronetpr.com   
> @aeronetpr
>  
>  
>  
> From: Patrick Leary 
> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
> Date: Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 9:18 AM
> To: "af@afmug.com" 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
>  
> The current cat 4 CPE will support upcoming MU-MIMO, so it will still enjoy 
> doubling of its current UL even without QAM256 in the CPE. The next CPE will 
> debut at some point this year I am told. I do not know what category it will 
> be. We are trying to get as high up as we can.
>  
> Patrick Leary
> M727.501.3735
> 
>  
>  
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini
> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 8:14 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
>  
> Patrick, what is the roadmap on the CPE? CAt6 coming soon?
>  
>  
>  
> Gino A. Villarini
> President
> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
> www.aeronetpr.com   
> @aeronetpr
>  
>  
>  
> From: Patrick Leary 
> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
> Date: Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 7:58 AM
> To: "af@afmug.com" 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
>  
> I have confirmed. the current base stations can be upgraded and will be 
> upgraded to QAM 256. Your sales rep is incorrect unless he is referring to 
> the current category 4 CPE.
>  
>  
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
> On Mar 5, 2015 3:01 AM, Stefan Englhardt  wrote:
> Your sales director EMEA.
> So marketing might be more cautious here ;-))
> 
> 
> >Please send me a name, offlist. My understanding has been otherwise and very 
> >clearly so. I am going to verify though.
> >
> >Patrick Leary
> > M 727.501.3735 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Stefan Englhardt
> >Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 4:21 PM
> >To: af@afmug.com
> >Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
> >
> >My Telrad contact told me that the actual HW is not upgradable to 256 QAM.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
>  
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Gino Villarini]

The AP will support Mumimo. on the CPE, it doesn’t matter.  But Cat4 CPEs only 
Tx at 16qam on 1 stream, they are not mimo on the upload…



Gino A. Villarini
President
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
www.aeronetpr.com
@aeronetpr



From: Patrick Leary mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" 
mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 9:18 AM
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

The current cat 4 CPE will support upcoming MU-MIMO, so it will still enjoy 
doubling of its current UL even without QAM256 in the CPE. The next CPE will 
debut at some point this year I am told. I do not know what category it will 
be. We are trying to get as high up as we can.

Patrick Leary
M727.501.3735
[cid:image001.png@01D0571C.A8B13170]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 8:14 AM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

Patrick, what is the roadmap on the CPE? CAt6 coming soon?



Gino A. Villarini
President
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
www.aeronetpr.com<http://www.aeronetpr.com>
@aeronetpr



From: Patrick Leary mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" 
mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 7:58 AM
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

I have confirmed. the current base stations can be upgraded and will be 
upgraded to QAM 256. Your sales rep is incorrect unless he is referring to the 
current category 4 CPE.


Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
On Mar 5, 2015 3:01 AM, Stefan Englhardt 
mailto:s...@genias.net>> wrote:
Your sales director EMEA.
So marketing might be more cautious here ;-))


>Please send me a name, offlist. My understanding has been otherwise and very 
>clearly so. I am going to verify though.
>
>Patrick Leary
> M 727.501.3735
>
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Stefan Englhardt
>Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 4:21 PM
>To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
>Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
>
>My Telrad contact told me that the actual HW is not upgradable to 256 QAM.













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.






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.

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Patrick Leary]

...also, as you know but many here may not, all LTE CPE remain backward 
compatible even as the eNodeBs (BTSs in LTE for those who do not know) advance 
and multiple category LTE CPE can live fine in the same network (just like your 
phones).

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image001.png@01D0571C.FD40AF40]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 8:14 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

Patrick, what is the roadmap on the CPE? CAt6 coming soon?



Gino A. Villarini
President
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
www.aeronetpr.com<http://www.aeronetpr.com>
@aeronetpr



From: Patrick Leary mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" 
mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 7:58 AM
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

I have confirmed. the current base stations can be upgraded and will be 
upgraded to QAM 256. Your sales rep is incorrect unless he is referring to the 
current category 4 CPE.


Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
On Mar 5, 2015 3:01 AM, Stefan Englhardt 
mailto:s...@genias.net>> wrote:
Your sales director EMEA.
So marketing might be more cautious here ;-))


>Please send me a name, offlist. My understanding has been otherwise and very 
>clearly so. I am going to verify though.
>
>Patrick Leary
> M 727.501.3735
>
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Stefan Englhardt
>Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 4:21 PM
>To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
>Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
>
>My Telrad contact told me that the actual HW is not upgradable to 256 QAM.













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.






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.

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Patrick Leary]

The current cat 4 CPE will support upcoming MU-MIMO, so it will still enjoy 
doubling of its current UL even without QAM256 in the CPE. The next CPE will 
debut at some point this year I am told. I do not know what category it will 
be. We are trying to get as high up as we can.

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image001.png@01D0571C.A8B13170]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 8:14 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

Patrick, what is the roadmap on the CPE? CAt6 coming soon?



Gino A. Villarini
President
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
www.aeronetpr.com<http://www.aeronetpr.com>
@aeronetpr



From: Patrick Leary mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" 
mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 7:58 AM
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

I have confirmed. the current base stations can be upgraded and will be 
upgraded to QAM 256. Your sales rep is incorrect unless he is referring to the 
current category 4 CPE.


Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
On Mar 5, 2015 3:01 AM, Stefan Englhardt 
mailto:s...@genias.net>> wrote:
Your sales director EMEA.
So marketing might be more cautious here ;-))


>Please send me a name, offlist. My understanding has been otherwise and very 
>clearly so. I am going to verify though.
>
>Patrick Leary
> M 727.501.3735
>
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Stefan Englhardt
>Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 4:21 PM
>To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
>Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
>
>My Telrad contact told me that the actual HW is not upgradable to 256 QAM.













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.






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.

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Gino Villarini]

Patrick, what is the roadmap on the CPE? CAt6 coming soon?



Gino A. Villarini
President
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
www.aeronetpr.com
@aeronetpr



From: Patrick Leary mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" 
mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 7:58 AM
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

I have confirmed. the current base stations can be upgraded and will be 
upgraded to QAM 256. Your sales rep is incorrect unless he is referring to the 
current category 4 CPE.


Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
On Mar 5, 2015 3:01 AM, Stefan Englhardt 
mailto:s...@genias.net>> wrote:
Your sales director EMEA.
So marketing might be more cautious here ;-))


>Please send me a name, offlist. My understanding has been otherwise and very 
>clearly so. I am going to verify though.
>
>Patrick Leary
> M 727.501.3735
>
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Stefan Englhardt
>Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 4:21 PM
>To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
>Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
>
>My Telrad contact told me that the actual HW is not upgradable to 256 QAM.













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.

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Patrick Leary]

I have confirmed. the current base stations can be upgraded and will be 
upgraded to QAM 256. Your sales rep is incorrect unless he is referring to the 
current category 4 CPE.


Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
On Mar 5, 2015 3:01 AM, Stefan Englhardt  wrote:
Your sales director EMEA.
So marketing might be more cautious here ;-))


>Please send me a name, offlist. My understanding has been otherwise and very 
>clearly so. I am going to verify though.
>
>Patrick Leary
> M 727.501.3735
>
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Stefan Englhardt
>Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 4:21 PM
>To: af@afmug.com
>Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
>
>My Telrad contact told me that the actual HW is not upgradable to 256 QAM.













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.

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Stefan Englhardt]

Your sales director EMEA.
So marketing might be more cautious here ;-))


>Please send me a name, offlist. My understanding has been otherwise and very 
>clearly so. I am going to verify though.
>
>Patrick Leary
> M 727.501.3735
>
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Stefan Englhardt
>Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 4:21 PM
>To: af@afmug.com
>Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
>
>My Telrad contact told me that the actual HW is not upgradable to 256 QAM.

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

[Gino Villarini]

Every tech requires new HW…lifespan its about 5-7 years.  xLTE its not a hw 
change but a add on



Gino A. Villarini
President
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
www.aeronetpr.com
@aeronetpr



From: Jon Paul Kelley 
mailto:jpkel...@ckswireless.com>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" 
mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 4:42 PM
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

I will beg to differ. The cellcos are constantly changing radios. My dealing 
are with AT&T and VZW. The old analog bays were swapped for CDMA(Verizon) and 
TDMA(AT&T) style radios. Completely different radio sets. Then LTE launched. 
Verizon installed brand new Lucent LTE base stations. Now with xLTE, the radios 
are changing again. Even within Verizon, they switched manufacturers for the 
CDMA and PCS gear from Lucent to Nortel. Then back to Lucent for LTE. They are 
constantly swapping radio systems.

I have been involved in network upgrades and radio installations for Verizon 
and AT&T for years. Not so much anymore. Hard to find good help and I don’t 
feel like running the roads to install that stuff anymore.

Jon Paul Kelley
CKS Wireless

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 1:48 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

I think it’s done all the time with the stuff the cellcos are deploying.  
Probably limited only by antennas.  No way are they changing out basestations 
for every protocol or spectrum change like they did in the past.

There are even systems where the software defined radio is remote in a 
centralized datacenter, I think it’s called C-RAN.


From:Adam Moffett<mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 1:39 PM
To:af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

Almost everybody who has an SDR sells you on the notion that it can be upgraded 
later.ï¿1Ž2 Almost nobody ever actually does anything more than bug fixes, or 
minor tweaks.

I think the only way Telrad might be odd with their SDR is that they actually 
made different firmware to convert the unit from WiMax to a completely 
different physical layer.

The only other big SDR change I can think of in the WISP marketplace was Moto's 
transition from software scheduling to hardware scheduling.ï¿1Ž2 Maybe some of 
you old men remember another incident to refute this statement, but I think I'd 
say that having the ability to define the radio in software doesn't mean 
they'll actually do it.



SimpleTest Stefan: can they upgrade their WiMAX base stations to LTE? The 
answer is No. Case closed.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
On Mar 4, 2015 1:30 PM, Stefan Englhardt mailto:s...@genias.net wrote:

>PW is not SDR based

So call their Distributors and tell them to change their announcements.
Just google Purwave and SDR and you find some.

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary) (Patrick Leary)

[Patrick Leary]

Depends how far they take it; how deep the design and build goes. I subscribe 
to Jon's position, which means the ability to completely shift protocols. I 
think our BTS has something like 8 cores in it. I'm just told there is lots of 
latent capacity we are reserving for major capabilities as LTE advances.

Patrick Leary
 M 727.501.3735 






-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Stefan Englhardt
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 4:35 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary) (Patrick Leary)

They did not promise an LTE-Upgrade. I dont know if their SDR would be flexible 
enough to do this.
I guess SDR gives some kind of upgradability but there are limits. 


>SimpleTest Stefan: can they upgrade their WiMAX base stations to LTE? The 
>answer is No. Case closed.
>
>Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID On Mar 4, 2015 1:30 PM, Stefan 
>Englhardt  wrote:
>
>>PW is not SDR based
>
>So call their Distributors and tell them to change their announcements.
>Just google Purwave and SDR and you find some.







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.




-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://afmug.com/pipermail/af/attachments/20150304/8c1b148a/attachment-0001.html>

--

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 11:45:38 -0700
From: Jaime Solorza 
To: Animal Farm 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Metric conduit, cable glands
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Can you remove that connector?  If yes. Replace it with liquid tight system and 
use small piece of their  flex tubing.  Add connector at the end and tighten 
up...might need some vinyl butly to protect fiber and seal...

Jaime Solorza
On Mar 4, 2015 11:36 AM, "Adam Moffett"  wrote:

>  So a lot of our equipment has cable glands with a metric thread on them.
> Like M25x1.5.  I have a scenario where I might want to extend that.  
> Well here, I'll just show you:
>
>
>
> There's an SFP slot in there and an LC patch cord.  The rubber grommet 
> in the cable gland can't fit around the LC connector, nor would I want 
> to compress that when I tighten the nut.  Furthermore I've got the 
> fiber manufacturer telling me that there will be a 10" long furcation 
> tube coming out of the outdoor cable, and that has to be protected from the 
> elements.
> Plan A is ask the manufacturer what they're plan was (I assume they 
> had something in mind when they put the SFP there).  Plan B is buy a 
> foot long nipple and a couplerbut it's M25 and I can't seem to 
> find metric pipe and fittings from a US vendor.  Plan C is whatever 
> brilliant solution one of you came up with after having already had this 
> problem.
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://afmug.com/pipermail/af/attachments/20150304/51cd1519/attachment.html>
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: dijghecj.png
Type: image/png
Size: 299887 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: 
<http://afmug.com/pipermail/af/attachments/20150304/51cd1519/attachment.png>

--

Subject: Digest Footer

___
Af mailing list
Af@afmug.com
http://afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af


--

End of Af Digest, Vol 7, Issue 203
**




 
 

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.

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary) (Patrick Leary)

[Stefan Englhardt]

They did not promise an LTE-Upgrade. I dont know if their SDR would be flexible 
enough to do this.
I guess SDR gives some kind of upgradability but there are limits.


>SimpleTest Stefan: can they upgrade their WiMAX base stations to LTE? The 
>answer is No. Case closed.
>
>Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID On Mar 4, 2015 1:30 PM, Stefan 
>Englhardt  wrote:
>
>>PW is not SDR based
>
>So call their Distributors and tell them to change their announcements.
>Just google Purwave and SDR and you find some.







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.




-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 


--

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 11:45:38 -0700
From: Jaime Solorza 
To: Animal Farm 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Metric conduit, cable glands
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Can you remove that connector?  If yes. Replace it with liquid tight system and 
use small piece of their  flex tubing.  Add connector at the end and tighten 
up...might need some vinyl butly to protect fiber and seal...

Jaime Solorza
On Mar 4, 2015 11:36 AM, "Adam Moffett"  wrote:

>  So a lot of our equipment has cable glands with a metric thread on them.
> Like M25x1.5.  I have a scenario where I might want to extend that.
> Well here, I'll just show you:
>
>
>
> There's an SFP slot in there and an LC patch cord.  The rubber grommet
> in the cable gland can't fit around the LC connector, nor would I want
> to compress that when I tighten the nut.  Furthermore I've got the
> fiber manufacturer telling me that there will be a 10" long furcation
> tube coming out of the outdoor cable, and that has to be protected from the 
> elements.
> Plan A is ask the manufacturer what they're plan was (I assume they
> had something in mind when they put the SFP there).  Plan B is buy a
> foot long nipple and a couplerbut it's M25 and I can't seem to
> find metric pipe and fittings from a US vendor.  Plan C is whatever
> brilliant solution one of you came up with after having already had this 
> problem.
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: dijghecj.png
Type: image/png
Size: 299887 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: 


--

Subject: Digest Footer

___
Af mailing list
Af@afmug.com
http://afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af


--

End of Af Digest, Vol 7, Issue 203
**

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Patrick Leary]

Please send me a name, offlist. My understanding has been otherwise and very 
clearly so. I am going to verify though.

Patrick Leary
 M 727.501.3735 






-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Stefan Englhardt
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 4:21 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

My Telrad contact told me that the actual HW is not upgradable to 256 QAM.






 
 

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.

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Stefan Englhardt]

My Telrad contact told me that the actual HW is not upgradable to 256 QAM.

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

[Jon Paul Kelley]

I will beg to differ. The cellcos are constantly changing radios. My dealing
are with AT&T and VZW. The old analog bays were swapped for CDMA(Verizon)
and TDMA(AT&T) style radios. Completely different radio sets. Then LTE
launched. Verizon installed brand new Lucent LTE base stations. Now with
xLTE, the radios are changing again. Even within Verizon, they switched
manufacturers for the CDMA and PCS gear from Lucent to Nortel. Then back to
Lucent for LTE. They are constantly swapping radio systems.

 

I have been involved in network upgrades and radio installations for Verizon
and AT&T for years. Not so much anymore. Hard to find good help and I don’t
feel like running the roads to install that stuff anymore.

 

Jon Paul Kelley

CKS Wireless

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 1:48 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

 

I think it’s done all the time with the stuff the cellcos are deploying.
Probably limited only by antennas.  No way are they changing out
basestations for every protocol or spectrum change like they did in the
past.

 

There are even systems where the software defined radio is remote in a
centralized datacenter, I think it’s called C-RAN.

 

 

From: Adam Moffett <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>  

Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 1:39 PM

To: af@afmug.com 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

 

Almost everybody who has an SDR sells you on the notion that it can be
upgraded later.� Almost nobody ever actually does anything more than bug
fixes, or minor tweaks.

I think the only way Telrad might be odd with their SDR is that they
actually made different firmware to convert the unit from WiMax to a
completely different physical layer.

The only other big SDR change I can think of in the WISP marketplace was
Moto's transition from software scheduling to hardware scheduling.� Maybe
some of you old men remember another incident to refute this statement, but
I think I'd say that having the ability to define the radio in software
doesn't mean they'll actually do it.





SimpleTest Stefan: can they upgrade their WiMAX base stations to LTE? The
answer is No. Case closed.

 

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID

On Mar 4, 2015 1:30 PM, Stefan Englhardt mailto:s...@genias.net wrote:


>PW is not SDR based

So call their Distributors and tell them to change their announcements.
Just google Purwave and SDR and you find some.



 

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

[Patrick Leary]

NEVER!! Like keeping old love letter. Hell, I'm a romantic, what can I say.

Plus, for years I saw it as a fall back position. Way too late now, the young 
whipper snappers doing fiber now have everything automated for them. If I 
plopped an old DC splicer in their laps (the size of an old typewriter 
(ironically), they'd look at it with the same blank stare as a young tech being 
handed a 66-block punch tool.

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image001.png@01D0568C.866B8D30]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of D. Ryan Spott
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 3:00 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

I have a few of those devices in a tool bag. The wife wants me to get rid of 
them but I just can't.

ryan
On 3/4/15 11:57 AM, Patrick Leary wrote:
Some things I keep for sentimental reasons. I still have the remnants of my old 
fiber kit. Pucks, lapping film, old mechanical splices, snips, cleavers, hand 
scope.
�
Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image002.png@01D0568C.866B8D30]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>



�
�
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Bill Prince
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 2:43 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)
�
What the heck. Splurge. Get yourself a new hat.




bp



�
On 3/4/2015 11:32 AM, Patrick Leary wrote:
I think I need to get my old hard hat out of the garage
�
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
On Mar 4, 2015 2:27 PM, Josh Luthman 
<mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
You are the subject, sir.� Just not of this thread.

�
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
�
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Patrick Leary 
mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>> wrote:
Damn, how did my name get in the subject?
�
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
On Mar 4, 2015 2:17 PM, Josh Luthman 
mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote:
Ubiquiti claimed carrier grade, too.

�
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
�
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Jon Auer 
mailto:j...@tapodi.net>> wrote:
Purewave claiming SDR because they can add proprietary extensions seems like 
Ubiquiti claiming to be SDR because they licensed Atheros driver code so they 
could make AirMax.
�
I always thought SDR meant the signal processing, anything to do with making 
sense of the RF, happened in software (FPGA counts!). Ettus Research's USRP is 
a example on TX/RX. RTL-SDR USB sticks on the RX only.�
E.g. If, in theory, the manufacturer can reprogram it to be a FM radio (maybe 
you replace the transciever/amps first though).
�
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Ken Hohhof 
mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote:
Why is it not software defined?� Because DAN owned the core WIMAX software? 
Purewave claimed to have purchased the rights to make their own mods, that was 
one of their claimed advantages over PMP320.� Not sure what Mercury would say 
now.� But don't they have a proprietary enhanced (but not LTE) version 
now?� I don't see how they do that if it's not a SDR.

I assume we are talking about the part of Purewave that went to Mercury, not 
the part that went to Redline.

If you mean was it designed to do both WIMAX and LTE with just a different 
software load, no, they never claimed that AFAIK.


-Original Message- From: Stefan Englhardt
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 12:30 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)



PW is not SDR based

So call their Distributors and tell them to change their announcements.
Just google Purwave and SDR and you find some.




�
�




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.

�




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 ha

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

[D. Ryan Spott]

I have a few of those devices in a tool bag. The wife wants me to get 
rid of them but I just can't.


ryan

On 3/4/15 11:57 AM, Patrick Leary wrote:


Some things I keep for sentimental reasons. I still have the remnants 
of my old fiber kit. Pucks, lapping film, old mechanical splices, 
snips, cleavers, hand scope.


*Patrick Leary*

***M*727.501.3735

<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>


*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Bill Prince
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 04, 2015 2:43 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

What the heck. Splurge. Get yourself a new hat.


bp

  


On 3/4/2015 11:32 AM, Patrick Leary wrote:

I think I need to get my old hard hat out of the garage

/Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID/

On Mar 4, 2015 2:27 PM, Josh Luthman 
<mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:

You are the subject, sir.� Just not of this thread.


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Patrick Leary
mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>> wrote:

Damn, how did my name get in the subject?

/Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID/

On Mar 4, 2015 2:17 PM, Josh Luthman mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote:

Ubiquiti claimed carrier grade, too.


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340 
Direct: 937-552-2343 
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Jon Auer mailto:j...@tapodi.net>> wrote:

Purewave claiming SDR because they can add proprietary
extensions seems like Ubiquiti claiming to be SDR because they
licensed Atheros driver code so they could make AirMax.

I always thought SDR meant the signal processing, anything to
do with making sense of the RF, happened in software (FPGA
counts!). Ettus Research's USRP is a example on TX/RX. RTL-SDR
USB sticks on the RX only.�

E.g. If, in theory, the manufacturer can reprogram it to be a
FM radio (maybe you replace the transciever/amps first though).

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Ken Hohhof mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote:

Why is it not software defined?� Because DAN owned the core
WIMAX software? Purewave claimed to have purchased the rights
to make their own mods, that was one of their claimed
advantages over PMP320.� Not sure what Mercury would say
now.� But don't they have a proprietary enhanced (but not
LTE) version now?� I don't see how they do that if it's not
a SDR.

I assume we are talking about the part of Purewave that went
to Mercury, not the part that went to Redline.

If you mean was it designed to do both WIMAX and LTE with just
a different software load, no, they never claimed that AFAIK.


-Original Message- From: Stefan Englhardt
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 12:30 PM
        To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)



PW is not SDR based


So call their Distributors and tell them to change their
announcements.
Just google Purwave and SDR and you find some.








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.








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.









This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

[Patrick Leary]

Some things I keep for sentimental reasons. I still have the remnants of my old 
fiber kit. Pucks, lapping film, old mechanical splices, snips, cleavers, hand 
scope.

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image001.png@01D0568B.3A57CD60]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Bill Prince
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 2:43 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

What the heck. Splurge. Get yourself a new hat.



bp




On 3/4/2015 11:32 AM, Patrick Leary wrote:
I think I need to get my old hard hat out of the garage

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
On Mar 4, 2015 2:27 PM, Josh Luthman 
<mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
You are the subject, sir.� Just not of this thread.


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Patrick Leary 
mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>> wrote:
Damn, how did my name get in the subject?

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
On Mar 4, 2015 2:17 PM, Josh Luthman 
mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote:
Ubiquiti claimed carrier grade, too.


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Jon Auer 
mailto:j...@tapodi.net>> wrote:
Purewave claiming SDR because they can add proprietary extensions seems like 
Ubiquiti claiming to be SDR because they licensed Atheros driver code so they 
could make AirMax.

I always thought SDR meant the signal processing, anything to do with making 
sense of the RF, happened in software (FPGA counts!). Ettus Research's USRP is 
a example on TX/RX. RTL-SDR USB sticks on the RX only.�
E.g. If, in theory, the manufacturer can reprogram it to be a FM radio (maybe 
you replace the transciever/amps first though).

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Ken Hohhof 
mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote:
Why is it not software defined?� Because DAN owned the core WIMAX software? 
Purewave claimed to have purchased the rights to make their own mods, that was 
one of their claimed advantages over PMP320.� Not sure what Mercury would say 
now.� But don't they have a proprietary enhanced (but not LTE) version 
now?� I don't see how they do that if it's not a SDR.

I assume we are talking about the part of Purewave that went to Mercury, not 
the part that went to Redline.

If you mean was it designed to do both WIMAX and LTE with just a different 
software load, no, they never claimed that AFAIK.


-Original Message- From: Stefan Englhardt
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 12:30 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)


PW is not SDR based

So call their Distributors and tell them to change their announcements.
Just google Purwave and SDR and you find some.









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.






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.







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.

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

[Patrick Leary]

Correct. That was an important achievement that deserves recognition.

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image001.png@01D0568B.54286240]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Bill Prince
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 2:45 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

Cambium did a firmware update to add 256QAM. That is nothing to sneeze at.



bp




On 3/4/2015 11:39 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:
Almost everybody who has an SDR sells you on the notion that it can be upgraded 
later. Almost nobody ever actually does anything more than bug fixes, or minor 
tweaks.

I think the only way Telrad might be odd with their SDR is that they actually 
made different firmware to convert the unit from WiMax to a completely 
different physical layer.

The only other big SDR change I can think of in the WISP marketplace was Moto's 
transition from software scheduling to hardware scheduling. Maybe some of you 
old men remember another incident to refute this statement, but I think I'd say 
that having the ability to define the radio in software doesn't mean they'll 
actually do it.



SimpleTest Stefan: can they upgrade their WiMAX base stations to LTE? The 
answer is No. Case closed.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
On Mar 4, 2015 1:30 PM, Stefan Englhardt 
<mailto:s...@genias.net> wrote:

>PW is not SDR based

So call their Distributors and tell them to change their announcements.
Just google Purwave and SDR and you find some.








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.

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

[Patrick Leary]

Now this is an excellent question, and the truth is with the first release of 
LTE, the similarities are greater than their differences, but that is where it 
ends. There is no more R&D on the WiMAX standard. Period. It is done. Gray and 
Mo's jobs at the WiMAX Forum is to eliminate their jobs. LTE on the other end 
is at the front end of its life cycle and just last week Nathan Stooke shared 
that he discovered $15B is being spent in LTE R&D PER YEAR at this point.

Second, WiMAX was mostly a dream for mass and an ecosystem that never happened. 
I could speak for hours on the issues why it failed and mostly none of them 
were technical. LTE, by contrast has already won. There is no more UMTS, no 
more CMDA, no more GSM, at least not as we knew them. All have collapsed into 
LTE. Now we even hear the (loud) rumblings of LTE rolling into 5 GHz for mobile 
offload, and my rantings about it as a fixed solution.

On basic tech things, WiMAX caps at 10 MHz channels and limits per user rates. 
LTE offers 20 MHz channels and uncaps user rates. Moving forward, LTE pulls 
away very fast in bits/tone efficiency and adds features never even appearing 
on the roadmap of WiMAX (like CoMP...wait until you learn about that 
tomorrow...imagine your own noise turning in to something that gets multiplexed 
to IMPROVE your network!).

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image003.png@01D0568A.C86A9C50]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Bill Prince
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 2:42 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

What are the significant differences between LTE and WiMax?  They're both OFDM, 
they're both MIMO.  I guess that LTE is 4x4 (I don't know)?  Just wondering 
what the technical challenges might look like.



bp




On 3/4/2015 11:36 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
My understanding was that it was an FPGA and software based platform.  And that 
PW bought the design from Design Arts Networks so they could modify it, as 
opposed to just licensing the design.  Not just adding extensions to drivers 
for an ASIC.

I think the point Patrick is trying to make is Telrad designed their hardware 
from the outset to handle both WIMAX and LTE, with WIMAX coming out first, but 
same HW being upgradable via SW to LTE.  And that now they have actually done 
it, which is significant, because many engineering teams in history have said 
“it’s a SMOP (small matter of programming)” and then had to admit defeat and 
change the hardware.


From: Jon Auer<mailto:j...@tapodi.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 1:15 PM
To: Animal Farm<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

Purewave claiming SDR because they can add proprietary extensions seems like 
Ubiquiti claiming to be SDR because they licensed Atheros driver code so they 
could make AirMax.

I always thought SDR meant the signal processing, anything to do with making 
sense of the RF, happened in software (FPGA counts!). Ettus Research's USRP is 
a example on TX/RX. RTL-SDR USB sticks on the RX only.
E.g. If, in theory, the manufacturer can reprogram it to be a FM radio (maybe 
you replace the transciever/amps first though).

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Ken Hohhof 
mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote:
Why is it not software defined?  Because DAN owned the core WIMAX software? 
Purewave claimed to have purchased the rights to make their own mods, that was 
one of their claimed advantages over PMP320.  Not sure what Mercury would say 
now.  But don't they have a proprietary enhanced (but not LTE) version now?  I 
don't see how they do that if it's not a SDR.

I assume we are talking about the part of Purewave that went to Mercury, not 
the part that went to Redline.

If you mean was it designed to do both WIMAX and LTE with just a different 
software load, no, they never claimed that AFAIK.


-Original Message- From: Stefan Englhardt
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 12:30 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)


PW is not SDR based

So call their Distributors and tell them to change their announcements.
Just google Purwave and SDR and you find some.










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.

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

[Ken Hohhof]

I think it’s done all the time with the stuff the cellcos are deploying.  
Probably limited only by antennas.  No way are they changing out basestations 
for every protocol or spectrum change like they did in the past.

There are even systems where the software defined radio is remote in a 
centralized datacenter, I think it’s called C-RAN.


From: Adam Moffett 
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 1:39 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

Almost everybody who has an SDR sells you on the notion that it can be upgraded 
later.� Almost nobody ever actually does anything more than bug fixes, or 
minor tweaks.

I think the only way Telrad might be odd with their SDR is that they actually 
made different firmware to convert the unit from WiMax to a completely 
different physical layer.

The only other big SDR change I can think of in the WISP marketplace was Moto's 
transition from software scheduling to hardware scheduling.� Maybe some of 
you old men remember another incident to refute this statement, but I think I'd 
say that having the ability to define the radio in software doesn't mean 
they'll actually do it.





  SimpleTest Stefan: can they upgrade their WiMAX base stations to LTE? The 
answer is No. Case closed.

  Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
  On Mar 4, 2015 1:30 PM, Stefan Englhardt mailto:s...@genias.net wrote:


  >PW is not SDR based

  So call their Distributors and tell them to change their announcements.
  Just google Purwave and SDR and you find some.

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

[Chuck McCown]

If LTE needs more linearity in the power amp stage than WiMax then indeed it 
could require a change in some radios.  

From: Patrick Leary 
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 12:44 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

Alvarion had that as a dream, but was never able to realize it. It was only 
achieved under the Telrad banner, but yes I do remember some months back more a 
competing vendor telling people it was impossible to convert from WiMAX to LTE 
without a hardware change.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
On Mar 4, 2015 2:36 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

My understanding was that it was an FPGA and software based platform.  And that 
PW bought the design from Design Arts Networks so they could modify it, as 
opposed to just licensing the design.  Not just adding extensions to drivers 
for an ASIC.

I think the point Patrick is trying to make is Telrad designed their hardware 
from the outset to handle both WIMAX and LTE, with WIMAX coming out first, but 
same HW being upgradable via SW to LTE.  And that now they have actually done 
it, which is significant, because many engineering teams in history have said 
“it’s a SMOP (small matter of programming)” and then had to admit defeat and 
change the hardware.


From: Jon Auer 
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 1:15 PM
To: Animal Farm 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

Purewave claiming SDR because they can add proprietary extensions seems like 
Ubiquiti claiming to be SDR because they licensed Atheros driver code so they 
could make AirMax. 

I always thought SDR meant the signal processing, anything to do with making 
sense of the RF, happened in software (FPGA counts!). Ettus Research's USRP is 
a example on TX/RX. RTL-SDR USB sticks on the RX only. 
E.g. If, in theory, the manufacturer can reprogram it to be a FM radio (maybe 
you replace the transciever/amps first though).

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

  Why is it not software defined?  Because DAN owned the core WIMAX software? 
Purewave claimed to have purchased the rights to make their own mods, that was 
one of their claimed advantages over PMP320.  Not sure what Mercury would say 
now.  But don't they have a proprietary enhanced (but not LTE) version now?  I 
don't see how they do that if it's not a SDR.

  I assume we are talking about the part of Purewave that went to Mercury, not 
the part that went to Redline.

  If you mean was it designed to do both WIMAX and LTE with just a different 
software load, no, they never claimed that AFAIK.


  -Original Message- From: Stefan Englhardt
  Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 12:30 PM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary) 




PW is not SDR based


  So call their Distributors and tell them to change their announcements.
  Just google Purwave and SDR and you find some.











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.

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

[Bill Prince]

What are the significant differences between LTE and WiMax?  They're 
both OFDM, they're both MIMO.  I guess that LTE is 4x4 (I don't know)?  
Just wondering what the technical challenges might look like.


bp


On 3/4/2015 11:36 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
My understanding was that it was an FPGA and software based platform.  
And that PW bought the design from Design Arts Networks so they could 
modify it, as opposed to just licensing the design.  Not just adding 
extensions to drivers for an ASIC.
I think the point Patrick is trying to make is Telrad designed their 
hardware from the outset to handle both WIMAX and LTE, with WIMAX 
coming out first, but same HW being upgradable via SW to LTE.  And 
that now they have actually done it, which is significant, because 
many engineering teams in history have said “it’s a SMOP (small matter 
of programming)” and then had to admit defeat and change the hardware.

*From:* Jon Auer <mailto:j...@tapodi.net>
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 04, 2015 1:15 PM
*To:* Animal Farm <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)
Purewave claiming SDR because they can add proprietary extensions 
seems like Ubiquiti claiming to be SDR because they licensed Atheros 
driver code so they could make AirMax.
I always thought SDR meant the signal processing, anything to do with 
making sense of the RF, happened in software (FPGA counts!). Ettus 
Research's USRP is a example on TX/RX. RTL-SDR USB sticks on the RX only.
E.g. If, in theory, the manufacturer can reprogram it to be a FM radio 
(maybe you replace the transciever/amps first though).
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Ken Hohhof <mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote:


Why is it not software defined? Because DAN owned the core WIMAX
software? Purewave claimed to have purchased the rights to make
their own mods, that was one of their claimed advantages over
PMP320.  Not sure what Mercury would say now.  But don't they have
a proprietary enhanced (but not LTE) version now?  I don't see how
they do that if it's not a SDR.

I assume we are talking about the part of Purewave that went to
Mercury, not the part that went to Redline.

If you mean was it designed to do both WIMAX and LTE with just a
different software load, no, they never claimed that AFAIK.


-Original Message- From: Stefan Englhardt
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 12:30 PM
    To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)



PW is not SDR based


So call their Distributors and tell them to change their
announcements.
Just google Purwave and SDR and you find some.

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

[Bill Prince]

Cambium did a firmware update to add 256QAM. That is nothing to sneeze at.

bp


On 3/4/2015 11:39 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:
Almost everybody who has an SDR sells you on the notion that it can be 
upgraded later. Almost nobody ever actually does anything more than 
bug fixes, or minor tweaks.


I think the only way Telrad might be odd with their SDR is that they 
actually made different firmware to convert the unit from WiMax to a 
completely different physical layer.


The only other big SDR change I can think of in the WISP marketplace 
was Moto's transition from software scheduling to hardware scheduling. 
Maybe some of you old men remember another incident to refute this 
statement, but I think I'd say that having the ability to define the 
radio in software doesn't mean they'll actually do it.





SimpleTest Stefan: can they upgrade their WiMAX base stations to LTE? 
The answer is No. Case closed.


/Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID/
On Mar 4, 2015 1:30 PM, Stefan Englhardt  wrote:

>PW is not SDR based

So call their Distributors and tell them to change their announcements.
Just google Purwave and SDR and you find some.

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

[Chuck McCown]

Years ago I dug into the LTE protocol to see what it really was.  My 
recollection is it is a collection of a bunch of different modulation formats 
that can be used as appropriate.  I think it was expandable and built for 
future flavors of modulation.  Seems like one of the formats was very much like 
WiMax.  Again at least 5-7 years since I read that document.  

From: Bill Prince 
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 12:41 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

What are the significant differences between LTE and WiMax?  They're both OFDM, 
they're both MIMO.  I guess that LTE is 4x4 (I don't know)?  Just wondering 
what the technical challenges might look like.


bp


On 3/4/2015 11:36 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

  My understanding was that it was an FPGA and software based platform.  And 
that PW bought the design from Design Arts Networks so they could modify it, as 
opposed to just licensing the design.  Not just adding extensions to drivers 
for an ASIC.

  I think the point Patrick is trying to make is Telrad designed their hardware 
from the outset to handle both WIMAX and LTE, with WIMAX coming out first, but 
same HW being upgradable via SW to LTE.  And that now they have actually done 
it, which is significant, because many engineering teams in history have said 
“it’s a SMOP (small matter of programming)” and then had to admit defeat and 
change the hardware.


  From: Jon Auer 
  Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 1:15 PM
  To: Animal Farm 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

  Purewave claiming SDR because they can add proprietary extensions seems like 
Ubiquiti claiming to be SDR because they licensed Atheros driver code so they 
could make AirMax. 

  I always thought SDR meant the signal processing, anything to do with making 
sense of the RF, happened in software (FPGA counts!). Ettus Research's USRP is 
a example on TX/RX. RTL-SDR USB sticks on the RX only. 
  E.g. If, in theory, the manufacturer can reprogram it to be a FM radio (maybe 
you replace the transciever/amps first though).

  On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

Why is it not software defined?  Because DAN owned the core WIMAX software? 
Purewave claimed to have purchased the rights to make their own mods, that was 
one of their claimed advantages over PMP320.  Not sure what Mercury would say 
now.  But don't they have a proprietary enhanced (but not LTE) version now?  I 
don't see how they do that if it's not a SDR.

I assume we are talking about the part of Purewave that went to Mercury, 
not the part that went to Redline.

If you mean was it designed to do both WIMAX and LTE with just a different 
software load, no, they never claimed that AFAIK.


-Original Message- From: Stefan Englhardt
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 12:30 PM
    To: af@afmug.com
    Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary) 




  PW is not SDR based


So call their Distributors and tell them to change their announcements.
Just google Purwave and SDR and you find some.

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

[Patrick Leary]

Alvarion had that as a dream, but was never able to realize it. It was only 
achieved under the Telrad banner, but yes I do remember some months back more a 
competing vendor telling people it was impossible to convert from WiMAX to LTE 
without a hardware change.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
On Mar 4, 2015 2:36 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
My understanding was that it was an FPGA and software based platform.  And that 
PW bought the design from Design Arts Networks so they could modify it, as 
opposed to just licensing the design.  Not just adding extensions to drivers 
for an ASIC.

I think the point Patrick is trying to make is Telrad designed their hardware 
from the outset to handle both WIMAX and LTE, with WIMAX coming out first, but 
same HW being upgradable via SW to LTE.  And that now they have actually done 
it, which is significant, because many engineering teams in history have said 
“it’s a SMOP (small matter of programming)” and then had to admit defeat and 
change the hardware.


From: Jon Auer<mailto:j...@tapodi.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 1:15 PM
To: Animal Farm<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

Purewave claiming SDR because they can add proprietary extensions seems like 
Ubiquiti claiming to be SDR because they licensed Atheros driver code so they 
could make AirMax.

I always thought SDR meant the signal processing, anything to do with making 
sense of the RF, happened in software (FPGA counts!). Ettus Research's USRP is 
a example on TX/RX. RTL-SDR USB sticks on the RX only.
E.g. If, in theory, the manufacturer can reprogram it to be a FM radio (maybe 
you replace the transciever/amps first though).

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Ken Hohhof 
mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote:
Why is it not software defined?  Because DAN owned the core WIMAX software? 
Purewave claimed to have purchased the rights to make their own mods, that was 
one of their claimed advantages over PMP320.  Not sure what Mercury would say 
now.  But don't they have a proprietary enhanced (but not LTE) version now?  I 
don't see how they do that if it's not a SDR.

I assume we are talking about the part of Purewave that went to Mercury, not 
the part that went to Redline.

If you mean was it designed to do both WIMAX and LTE with just a different 
software load, no, they never claimed that AFAIK.


-Original Message- From: Stefan Englhardt
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 12:30 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)



PW is not SDR based

So call their Distributors and tell them to change their announcements.
Just google Purwave and SDR and you find some.










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.

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

[Patrick Leary]

No chin strap, so yes definitely useless for climbing.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
On Mar 4, 2015 2:35 PM, Josh Luthman  wrote:
Not OSHA approved.  I have a few spare ones you can borrow for a Compact.


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Patrick Leary 
mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>> wrote:
I think I need to get my old hard hat out of the garage

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
On Mar 4, 2015 2:27 PM, Josh Luthman 
mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote:
You are the subject, sir.  Just not of this thread.


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Patrick Leary 
mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>> wrote:
Damn, how did my name get in the subject?

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
On Mar 4, 2015 2:17 PM, Josh Luthman 
mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote:
Ubiquiti claimed carrier grade, too.


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Jon Auer 
mailto:j...@tapodi.net>> wrote:
Purewave claiming SDR because they can add proprietary extensions seems like 
Ubiquiti claiming to be SDR because they licensed Atheros driver code so they 
could make AirMax.

I always thought SDR meant the signal processing, anything to do with making 
sense of the RF, happened in software (FPGA counts!). Ettus Research's USRP is 
a example on TX/RX. RTL-SDR USB sticks on the RX only.
E.g. If, in theory, the manufacturer can reprogram it to be a FM radio (maybe 
you replace the transciever/amps first though).

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Ken Hohhof 
mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote:
Why is it not software defined?  Because DAN owned the core WIMAX software? 
Purewave claimed to have purchased the rights to make their own mods, that was 
one of their claimed advantages over PMP320.  Not sure what Mercury would say 
now.  But don't they have a proprietary enhanced (but not LTE) version now?  I 
don't see how they do that if it's not a SDR.

I assume we are talking about the part of Purewave that went to Mercury, not 
the part that went to Redline.

If you mean was it designed to do both WIMAX and LTE with just a different 
software load, no, they never claimed that AFAIK.


-Original Message- From: Stefan Englhardt
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 12:30 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)



PW is not SDR based

So call their Distributors and tell them to change their announcements.
Just google Purwave and SDR and you find some.










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.







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.







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.

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

[Bill Prince]

What the heck. Splurge. Get yourself a new hat.

bp


On 3/4/2015 11:32 AM, Patrick Leary wrote:

I think I need to get my old hard hat out of the garage

/Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID/
On Mar 4, 2015 2:27 PM, Josh Luthman  wrote:
You are the subject, sir.  Just not of this thread.


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Patrick Leary 
mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>> wrote:


Damn, how did my name get in the subject?

/Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID/
On Mar 4, 2015 2:17 PM, Josh Luthman mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote:
Ubiquiti claimed carrier grade, too.


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340 
Direct: 937-552-2343 
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Jon Auer mailto:j...@tapodi.net>> wrote:

Purewave claiming SDR because they can add proprietary
extensions seems like Ubiquiti claiming to be SDR because they
licensed Atheros driver code so they could make AirMax.

I always thought SDR meant the signal processing, anything to
do with making sense of the RF, happened in software (FPGA
counts!). Ettus Research's USRP is a example on TX/RX. RTL-SDR
USB sticks on the RX only.
E.g. If, in theory, the manufacturer can reprogram it to be a
FM radio (maybe you replace the transciever/amps first though).

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Ken Hohhof mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote:

Why is it not software defined?  Because DAN owned the
core WIMAX software? Purewave claimed to have purchased
the rights to make their own mods, that was one of their
claimed advantages over PMP320.  Not sure what Mercury
would say now.  But don't they have a proprietary enhanced
(but not LTE) version now?  I don't see how they do that
if it's not a SDR.

I assume we are talking about the part of Purewave that
went to Mercury, not the part that went to Redline.

If you mean was it designed to do both WIMAX and LTE with
just a different software load, no, they never claimed
that AFAIK.


-Original Message- From: Stefan Englhardt
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 12:30 PM
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)



PW is not SDR based


So call their Distributors and tell them to change their
announcements.
Just google Purwave and SDR and you find some.











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.








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.

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

[Adam Moffett]

Almost everybody who has an SDR sells you on the notion that it can be 
upgraded later.  Almost nobody ever actually does anything more than bug 
fixes, or minor tweaks.


I think the only way Telrad might be odd with their SDR is that they 
actually made different firmware to convert the unit from WiMax to a 
completely different physical layer.


The only other big SDR change I can think of in the WISP marketplace was 
Moto's transition from software scheduling to hardware scheduling.  
Maybe some of you old men remember another incident to refute this 
statement, but I think I'd say that having the ability to define the 
radio in software doesn't mean they'll actually do it.





SimpleTest Stefan: can they upgrade their WiMAX base stations to LTE? 
The answer is No. Case closed.


/Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID/
On Mar 4, 2015 1:30 PM, Stefan Englhardt  wrote:

>PW is not SDR based

So call their Distributors and tell them to change their announcements.
Just google Purwave and SDR and you find some.

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

[Ken Hohhof]

My understanding was that it was an FPGA and software based platform.  And that 
PW bought the design from Design Arts Networks so they could modify it, as 
opposed to just licensing the design.  Not just adding extensions to drivers 
for an ASIC.

I think the point Patrick is trying to make is Telrad designed their hardware 
from the outset to handle both WIMAX and LTE, with WIMAX coming out first, but 
same HW being upgradable via SW to LTE.  And that now they have actually done 
it, which is significant, because many engineering teams in history have said 
“it’s a SMOP (small matter of programming)” and then had to admit defeat and 
change the hardware.


From: Jon Auer 
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 1:15 PM
To: Animal Farm 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

Purewave claiming SDR because they can add proprietary extensions seems like 
Ubiquiti claiming to be SDR because they licensed Atheros driver code so they 
could make AirMax. 

I always thought SDR meant the signal processing, anything to do with making 
sense of the RF, happened in software (FPGA counts!). Ettus Research's USRP is 
a example on TX/RX. RTL-SDR USB sticks on the RX only. 
E.g. If, in theory, the manufacturer can reprogram it to be a FM radio (maybe 
you replace the transciever/amps first though).

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

  Why is it not software defined?  Because DAN owned the core WIMAX software? 
Purewave claimed to have purchased the rights to make their own mods, that was 
one of their claimed advantages over PMP320.  Not sure what Mercury would say 
now.  But don't they have a proprietary enhanced (but not LTE) version now?  I 
don't see how they do that if it's not a SDR.

  I assume we are talking about the part of Purewave that went to Mercury, not 
the part that went to Redline.

  If you mean was it designed to do both WIMAX and LTE with just a different 
software load, no, they never claimed that AFAIK.


  -Original Message- From: Stefan Englhardt
  Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 12:30 PM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary) 




PW is not SDR based


  So call their Distributors and tell them to change their announcements.
  Just google Purwave and SDR and you find some.

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

[Josh Luthman]

Not OSHA approved.  I have a few spare ones you can borrow for a Compact.


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Patrick Leary 
wrote:

>  I think I need to get my old hard hat out of the garage
>
>  *Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID*
>  On Mar 4, 2015 2:27 PM, Josh Luthman  wrote:
>  You are the subject, sir.  Just not of this thread.
>
>
>  Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Patrick Leary 
> wrote:
>
>>  Damn, how did my name get in the subject?
>>
>>  *Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID*
>>  On Mar 4, 2015 2:17 PM, Josh Luthman 
>> wrote:
>>   Ubiquiti claimed carrier grade, too.
>>
>>
>>  Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>>  On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Jon Auer  wrote:
>>
>>> Purewave claiming SDR because they can add proprietary extensions seems
>>> like Ubiquiti claiming to be SDR because they licensed Atheros driver code
>>> so they could make AirMax.
>>>
>>>  I always thought SDR meant the signal processing, anything to do with
>>> making sense of the RF, happened in software (FPGA counts!). Ettus
>>> Research's USRP is a example on TX/RX. RTL-SDR USB sticks on the RX only.
>>> E.g. If, in theory, the manufacturer can reprogram it to be a FM radio
>>> (maybe you replace the transciever/amps first though).
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why is it not software defined?  Because DAN owned the core WIMAX
>>>> software? Purewave claimed to have purchased the rights to make their own
>>>> mods, that was one of their claimed advantages over PMP320.  Not sure what
>>>> Mercury would say now.  But don't they have a proprietary enhanced (but not
>>>> LTE) version now?  I don't see how they do that if it's not a SDR.
>>>>
>>>> I assume we are talking about the part of Purewave that went to
>>>> Mercury, not the part that went to Redline.
>>>>
>>>> If you mean was it designed to do both WIMAX and LTE with just a
>>>> different software load, no, they never claimed that AFAIK.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Original Message- From: Stefan Englhardt
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 12:30 PM
>>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  PW is not SDR based
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So call their Distributors and tell them to change their announcements.
>>>> Just google Purwave and SDR and you find some.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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.
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> 
> 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.
>
> 
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

[Patrick Leary]

I think I need to get my old hard hat out of the garage

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
On Mar 4, 2015 2:27 PM, Josh Luthman  wrote:
You are the subject, sir.  Just not of this thread.


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Patrick Leary 
mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>> wrote:
Damn, how did my name get in the subject?

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
On Mar 4, 2015 2:17 PM, Josh Luthman 
mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote:
Ubiquiti claimed carrier grade, too.


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Jon Auer 
mailto:j...@tapodi.net>> wrote:
Purewave claiming SDR because they can add proprietary extensions seems like 
Ubiquiti claiming to be SDR because they licensed Atheros driver code so they 
could make AirMax.

I always thought SDR meant the signal processing, anything to do with making 
sense of the RF, happened in software (FPGA counts!). Ettus Research's USRP is 
a example on TX/RX. RTL-SDR USB sticks on the RX only.
E.g. If, in theory, the manufacturer can reprogram it to be a FM radio (maybe 
you replace the transciever/amps first though).

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Ken Hohhof 
mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote:
Why is it not software defined?  Because DAN owned the core WIMAX software? 
Purewave claimed to have purchased the rights to make their own mods, that was 
one of their claimed advantages over PMP320.  Not sure what Mercury would say 
now.  But don't they have a proprietary enhanced (but not LTE) version now?  I 
don't see how they do that if it's not a SDR.

I assume we are talking about the part of Purewave that went to Mercury, not 
the part that went to Redline.

If you mean was it designed to do both WIMAX and LTE with just a different 
software load, no, they never claimed that AFAIK.


-Original Message- From: Stefan Englhardt
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 12:30 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)



PW is not SDR based

So call their Distributors and tell them to change their announcements.
Just google Purwave and SDR and you find some.










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.







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.

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

[Patrick Leary]

Damn, how did my name get in the subject?

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
On Mar 4, 2015 2:17 PM, Josh Luthman  wrote:
Ubiquiti claimed carrier grade, too.


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Jon Auer 
mailto:j...@tapodi.net>> wrote:
Purewave claiming SDR because they can add proprietary extensions seems like 
Ubiquiti claiming to be SDR because they licensed Atheros driver code so they 
could make AirMax.

I always thought SDR meant the signal processing, anything to do with making 
sense of the RF, happened in software (FPGA counts!). Ettus Research's USRP is 
a example on TX/RX. RTL-SDR USB sticks on the RX only.
E.g. If, in theory, the manufacturer can reprogram it to be a FM radio (maybe 
you replace the transciever/amps first though).

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Ken Hohhof 
mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote:
Why is it not software defined?  Because DAN owned the core WIMAX software? 
Purewave claimed to have purchased the rights to make their own mods, that was 
one of their claimed advantages over PMP320.  Not sure what Mercury would say 
now.  But don't they have a proprietary enhanced (but not LTE) version now?  I 
don't see how they do that if it's not a SDR.

I assume we are talking about the part of Purewave that went to Mercury, not 
the part that went to Redline.

If you mean was it designed to do both WIMAX and LTE with just a different 
software load, no, they never claimed that AFAIK.


-Original Message- From: Stefan Englhardt
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 12:30 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)



PW is not SDR based

So call their Distributors and tell them to change their announcements.
Just google Purwave and SDR and you find some.










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.

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

[Josh Luthman]

You are the subject, sir.  Just not of this thread.


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Patrick Leary 
wrote:

>  Damn, how did my name get in the subject?
>
>  *Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID*
>  On Mar 4, 2015 2:17 PM, Josh Luthman  wrote:
>  Ubiquiti claimed carrier grade, too.
>
>
>  Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Jon Auer  wrote:
>
>> Purewave claiming SDR because they can add proprietary extensions seems
>> like Ubiquiti claiming to be SDR because they licensed Atheros driver code
>> so they could make AirMax.
>>
>>  I always thought SDR meant the signal processing, anything to do with
>> making sense of the RF, happened in software (FPGA counts!). Ettus
>> Research's USRP is a example on TX/RX. RTL-SDR USB sticks on the RX only.
>> E.g. If, in theory, the manufacturer can reprogram it to be a FM radio
>> (maybe you replace the transciever/amps first though).
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>>
>>> Why is it not software defined?  Because DAN owned the core WIMAX
>>> software? Purewave claimed to have purchased the rights to make their own
>>> mods, that was one of their claimed advantages over PMP320.  Not sure what
>>> Mercury would say now.  But don't they have a proprietary enhanced (but not
>>> LTE) version now?  I don't see how they do that if it's not a SDR.
>>>
>>> I assume we are talking about the part of Purewave that went to Mercury,
>>> not the part that went to Redline.
>>>
>>> If you mean was it designed to do both WIMAX and LTE with just a
>>> different software load, no, they never claimed that AFAIK.
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message- From: Stefan Englhardt
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 12:30 PM
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  PW is not SDR based
>>>>
>>>
>>> So call their Distributors and tell them to change their announcements.
>>> Just google Purwave and SDR and you find some.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> 
> 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.
>
> 
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

[Patrick Leary]

That's the understanding of the term that I share. Thank you Jon.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
On Mar 4, 2015 2:15 PM, Jon Auer  wrote:
Purewave claiming SDR because they can add proprietary extensions seems like 
Ubiquiti claiming to be SDR because they licensed Atheros driver code so they 
could make AirMax.

I always thought SDR meant the signal processing, anything to do with making 
sense of the RF, happened in software (FPGA counts!). Ettus Research's USRP is 
a example on TX/RX. RTL-SDR USB sticks on the RX only.
E.g. If, in theory, the manufacturer can reprogram it to be a FM radio (maybe 
you replace the transciever/amps first though).

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Ken Hohhof 
mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote:
Why is it not software defined?  Because DAN owned the core WIMAX software? 
Purewave claimed to have purchased the rights to make their own mods, that was 
one of their claimed advantages over PMP320.  Not sure what Mercury would say 
now.  But don't they have a proprietary enhanced (but not LTE) version now?  I 
don't see how they do that if it's not a SDR.

I assume we are talking about the part of Purewave that went to Mercury, not 
the part that went to Redline.

If you mean was it designed to do both WIMAX and LTE with just a different 
software load, no, they never claimed that AFAIK.


-Original Message- From: Stefan Englhardt
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 12:30 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)



PW is not SDR based

So call their Distributors and tell them to change their announcements.
Just google Purwave and SDR and you find some.









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.

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

[Josh Luthman]

Ubiquiti claimed carrier grade, too.


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Jon Auer  wrote:

> Purewave claiming SDR because they can add proprietary extensions seems
> like Ubiquiti claiming to be SDR because they licensed Atheros driver code
> so they could make AirMax.
>
> I always thought SDR meant the signal processing, anything to do with
> making sense of the RF, happened in software (FPGA counts!). Ettus
> Research's USRP is a example on TX/RX. RTL-SDR USB sticks on the RX only.
> E.g. If, in theory, the manufacturer can reprogram it to be a FM radio
> (maybe you replace the transciever/amps first though).
>
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>
>> Why is it not software defined?  Because DAN owned the core WIMAX
>> software? Purewave claimed to have purchased the rights to make their own
>> mods, that was one of their claimed advantages over PMP320.  Not sure what
>> Mercury would say now.  But don't they have a proprietary enhanced (but not
>> LTE) version now?  I don't see how they do that if it's not a SDR.
>>
>> I assume we are talking about the part of Purewave that went to Mercury,
>> not the part that went to Redline.
>>
>> If you mean was it designed to do both WIMAX and LTE with just a
>> different software load, no, they never claimed that AFAIK.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message- From: Stefan Englhardt
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 12:30 PM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)
>>
>>
>>
>>  PW is not SDR based
>>>
>>
>> So call their Distributors and tell them to change their announcements.
>> Just google Purwave and SDR and you find some.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

[Jon Auer]

Purewave claiming SDR because they can add proprietary extensions seems
like Ubiquiti claiming to be SDR because they licensed Atheros driver code
so they could make AirMax.

I always thought SDR meant the signal processing, anything to do with
making sense of the RF, happened in software (FPGA counts!). Ettus
Research's USRP is a example on TX/RX. RTL-SDR USB sticks on the RX only.
E.g. If, in theory, the manufacturer can reprogram it to be a FM radio
(maybe you replace the transciever/amps first though).

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

> Why is it not software defined?  Because DAN owned the core WIMAX
> software? Purewave claimed to have purchased the rights to make their own
> mods, that was one of their claimed advantages over PMP320.  Not sure what
> Mercury would say now.  But don't they have a proprietary enhanced (but not
> LTE) version now?  I don't see how they do that if it's not a SDR.
>
> I assume we are talking about the part of Purewave that went to Mercury,
> not the part that went to Redline.
>
> If you mean was it designed to do both WIMAX and LTE with just a different
> software load, no, they never claimed that AFAIK.
>
>
> -Original Message- From: Stefan Englhardt
> Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 12:30 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)
>
>
>
>  PW is not SDR based
>>
>
> So call their Distributors and tell them to change their announcements.
> Just google Purwave and SDR and you find some.
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

[Patrick Leary]

That may be a good point Ken. I am using the SDR term in the sense that Vanu 
Bose used it, who is one of the inventors. He explained this to me and other 
invited panelists on the FCC's Spectrum Policy Task Force in 2002. I'm using it 
in the sense of materially changing a piece of equipment from one protocol to 
another entirely via software independent of the hardware.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
On Mar 4, 2015 1:43 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
Why is it not software defined?  Because DAN owned the core WIMAX software?
Purewave claimed to have purchased the rights to make their own mods, that
was one of their claimed advantages over PMP320.  Not sure what Mercury
would say now.  But don't they have a proprietary enhanced (but not LTE)
version now?  I don't see how they do that if it's not a SDR.

I assume we are talking about the part of Purewave that went to Mercury, not
the part that went to Redline.

If you mean was it designed to do both WIMAX and LTE with just a different
software load, no, they never claimed that AFAIK.


-Original Message-
From: Stefan Englhardt
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 12:30 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)


>PW is not SDR based

So call their Distributors and tell them to change their announcements.
Just google Purwave and SDR and you find some.








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.

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

[Patrick Leary]

SimpleTest Stefan: can they upgrade their WiMAX base stations to LTE? The 
answer is No. Case closed.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
On Mar 4, 2015 1:30 PM, Stefan Englhardt  wrote:

>PW is not SDR based

So call their Distributors and tell them to change their announcements.
Just google Purwave and SDR and you find some.







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.

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

[Ken Hohhof]

Why is it not software defined?  Because DAN owned the core WIMAX software? 
Purewave claimed to have purchased the rights to make their own mods, that 
was one of their claimed advantages over PMP320.  Not sure what Mercury 
would say now.  But don't they have a proprietary enhanced (but not LTE) 
version now?  I don't see how they do that if it's not a SDR.


I assume we are talking about the part of Purewave that went to Mercury, not 
the part that went to Redline.


If you mean was it designed to do both WIMAX and LTE with just a different 
software load, no, they never claimed that AFAIK.



-Original Message- 
From: Stefan Englhardt

Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 12:30 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)



PW is not SDR based


So call their Distributors and tell them to change their announcements.
Just google Purwave and SDR and you find some.

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback (Patrick Leary)

[Stefan Englhardt]

>PW is not SDR based

So call their Distributors and tell them to change their announcements.
Just google Purwave and SDR and you find some.

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Gino Villarini]

cool, good to know!



Gino A. Villarini
President
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
www.aeronetpr.com  
@aeronetpr






On 3/4/15, 1:42 PM, "Patrick Leary"  wrote:

>I don't need to check Gino. Gone over this a million times. No change in
>BTS OR CPE.
>
>Patrick Leary
> M 727.501.3735 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini
>Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 12:40 PM
>To: af@afmug.com
>Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
>
>Patrick, please recheck with nick on that.. AFAIK MUMIMO requires diff
>HW/ Antennas? 
>
>
>
>Gino A. Villarini
>President
>Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
>www.aeronetpr.com
>@aeronetpr
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On 3/4/15, 1:32 PM, "Patrick Leary"  wrote:
>
>>QAM256 is not new hardware, neither is MU-MIMO
>>
>>Patrick Leary
>> M 727.501.3735
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Stefan Englhardt
>>Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 11:30 AM
>>To: af@afmug.com
>>Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
>>
>>>I disagree with the "3 years it is old stuff." The COMPACTs are SDRs
>>>with lots of latent capacity.
>>
>>Beeing old stuff is relative. We've SAF Luminas 366Mbit we could
>>replace with Integras which do 450Mbit now.
>>We've Radwin2000c with 100Mbit we could replace now with Mimosa B5
>>doing easily 400 MBit.
>>We've Purewave WiMAX we could upgrade with your's (SDR by the way) ...
>>
>>Sure within the next 3 years your gear is more or less old and
>>replacing it with your next modell would be a good improvement. SDR
>>might increase the lifetime but e.g. going to 256QAM will be the next
>>hardware.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> 
>>***
>>***
>>**
>>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.
>>***
>>***
>>**
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> 
> 
>**
>**
>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.
>**
>**
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Patrick Leary]

I don't need to check Gino. Gone over this a million times. No change in BTS OR 
CPE.

Patrick Leary
 M 727.501.3735 






-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 12:40 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

Patrick, please recheck with nick on that.. AFAIK MUMIMO requires diff HW/ 
Antennas? 



Gino A. Villarini
President
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
www.aeronetpr.com
@aeronetpr






On 3/4/15, 1:32 PM, "Patrick Leary"  wrote:

>QAM256 is not new hardware, neither is MU-MIMO
>
>Patrick Leary
> M 727.501.3735
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Stefan Englhardt
>Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 11:30 AM
>To: af@afmug.com
>Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
>
>>I disagree with the "3 years it is old stuff." The COMPACTs are SDRs 
>>with lots of latent capacity.
>
>Beeing old stuff is relative. We've SAF Luminas 366Mbit we could 
>replace with Integras which do 450Mbit now.
>We've Radwin2000c with 100Mbit we could replace now with Mimosa B5 
>doing easily 400 MBit.
>We've Purewave WiMAX we could upgrade with your's (SDR by the way) ...
>
>Sure within the next 3 years your gear is more or less old and 
>replacing it with your next modell would be a good improvement. SDR 
>might increase the lifetime but e.g. going to 256QAM will be the next hardware.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> 
>***
>***
>**
>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.
>***
>***
>**
>
>
>


 
 

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.

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Gino Villarini]

Patrick, please recheck with nick on that.. AFAIK MUMIMO requires diff HW/
Antennas? 



Gino A. Villarini
President
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
www.aeronetpr.com  
@aeronetpr






On 3/4/15, 1:32 PM, "Patrick Leary"  wrote:

>QAM256 is not new hardware, neither is MU-MIMO
>
>Patrick Leary
> M 727.501.3735 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Stefan Englhardt
>Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 11:30 AM
>To: af@afmug.com
>Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
>
>>I disagree with the "3 years it is old stuff." The COMPACTs are SDRs
>>with lots of latent capacity.
>
>Beeing old stuff is relative. We've SAF Luminas 366Mbit we could replace
>with Integras which do 450Mbit now.
>We've Radwin2000c with 100Mbit we could replace now with Mimosa B5 doing
>easily 400 MBit.
>We've Purewave WiMAX we could upgrade with your's (SDR by the way) ...
>
>Sure within the next 3 years your gear is more or less old and replacing
>it with your next modell would be a good improvement. SDR might increase
>the lifetime but e.g. going to 256QAM will be the next hardware.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> 
>**
>**
>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.
>**
>**
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Patrick Leary]

QAM256 is not new hardware, neither is MU-MIMO

Patrick Leary
 M 727.501.3735 






-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Stefan Englhardt
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 11:30 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

>I disagree with the "3 years it is old stuff." The COMPACTs are SDRs with lots 
>of latent capacity.

Beeing old stuff is relative. We've SAF Luminas 366Mbit we could replace with 
Integras which do 450Mbit now.
We've Radwin2000c with 100Mbit we could replace now with Mimosa B5 doing easily 
400 MBit.
We've Purewave WiMAX we could upgrade with your's (SDR by the way) ...

Sure within the next 3 years your gear is more or less old and replacing it 
with your next modell would be a good improvement. SDR might increase the 
lifetime but e.g. going to 256QAM will be the next hardware.






 
 

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.

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Patrick Leary]

Not wrong, just different. You guys are splitting aren't you?

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image001.png@01D05676.AF602DB0]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 10:08 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

Who's "you guys"?  I didn't work here when these decisions were made. :)

Some day maybe you can fill me in on what's been done wrong.  On or off list is 
fine.

Once again, your deployment is non standard Adam. The way your sectors are 
configured the NLOS won't rock your world. We've all known that for a long 
time; that was the choice you guys made.

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image002.png@01D05676.AF602DB0]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 3:55 AM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

There are also various ways to measure "working".  The way WiMax "works" NLOS 
does not rock my world.  I hope LTE does.
Population density is very low in some rural areas.  New construction has been 
pretty much nada, with the housing bust and wind farms, no new subdivisions, no 
farmettes.  The only houses are where farmhouses or 1 room schoolhouses used to 
stand.

Then factor in you just can’t achieve 100% market share.  No matter how good 
your service and price, some of the available subscribers will instead go with 
WISP competitors, DSL, satellite, mobile hotspot, or “I don’t need one of those 
newfangled computer thingies”.

So sometimes you’re doing good to get 15 subs.

Of course if you can double your range, you may quadruple the available market.

Someone on the list posted a few days back about not going through granite.  I 
assume even LTE can’t do that however.


From: Patrick Leary<mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 7:41 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

Alvarion did that. I admit, I'm not a fan of capping Glen. It is a gimmick. The 
hardware is what it is, and this hardware is expensive. 30dBm per port. 4 
tx/4rx. Power is expensive. The highest quality DSPs on the market. not 
consumer grade stuff with the sensitivity of your in home Wi-Fi router. We 
build our own phy from the ground up too, our own ATPC algorithms too.

On the software, we do that though -- enabling modularity and scale as you need 
to. I think I need to do a dedicated webinar to this community to walk you guys 
(or those inclined) through it (any takers?). I do not think we can be a 
solution that makes sense where you only have 15 clients. That's the blunt 
truth. Unless you are doing 50 Mbps customers, I am not your micropop (but I 
can do that in some modest scale). That said, I wonder where that 15 number 
comes from? Can you please explain on what architecture that is based? Range? 
Height? Etc. If it is based on a micropop and even then on what just that pop 
can see, I'd say that's likely a model invented out of necessity due to the 
poor performance of the system you are using.

I had a guy on a call today. He zoomed me in on Google Earth to his "NLOS" 
area. Farmland with wind breaks and shade trees for the homes. He is at 400' 
and can't connect squat behind those breaks. In my world, that's LOS all the 
way, even at 150 ft. It is total garbage that so many systems to can't deal 
with that and you've all been fed that that is "normal." It is not. It is just 
gear with terrible specs where the only R&D is at the software level, and even 
that is scant. You do not have NLOS problems. You have equipment problems. 
How such a product ever was allowed to go to market as a "solution" for rural 
broadband is, to me, cynical and reflective of playing a market to skim 
opportunistic dollars from a market segment that sometimes seems to embrace 
abuse. Sort of like the poor 700 MHz owners who got sucked in to buying 20 year 
old Marconi WipLL repackaged as a 700 MHz "solution" because all there was to 
buy. Then vendors do that crap and THEN, THEN tell you there's no backward 
compatibility when they come out with something new?

WISPs. Sometimes you guys drive me nuts. You are like cheerleaders that love to 
date the quarterbacks who abuse you. That is like selling a car that falls 
apart once you leave residential streets. None of you should ever have accepted 
these golf carts to run your fleets. Sometimes, cheap is just cheap.

Boy, I'm gonna hear it from my vendor peers, but this ain't a game or just a 
job for me. I damn sure hope it ain't that for you either.

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image002.png@01D05676.AF602DB0]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Patrick Leary]

PW is not SDR based

Patrick Leary
 M 727.501.3735 






-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Stefan Englhardt
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 11:30 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

>I disagree with the "3 years it is old stuff." The COMPACTs are SDRs with lots 
>of latent capacity.

Beeing old stuff is relative. We've SAF Luminas 366Mbit we could replace with 
Integras which do 450Mbit now.
We've Radwin2000c with 100Mbit we could replace now with Mimosa B5 doing easily 
400 MBit.
We've Purewave WiMAX we could upgrade with your's (SDR by the way) ...

Sure within the next 3 years your gear is more or less old and replacing it 
with your next modell would be a good improvement. SDR might increase the 
lifetime but e.g. going to 256QAM will be the next hardware.






 
 

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.

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Stefan Englhardt]

>I disagree with the "3 years it is old stuff." The COMPACTs are SDRs with lots 
>of latent capacity.

Beeing old stuff is relative. We've SAF Luminas 366Mbit we could replace with 
Integras which do 450Mbit now.
We've Radwin2000c with 100Mbit we could replace now with Mimosa B5 doing easily 
400 MBit.
We've Purewave WiMAX we could upgrade with your's (SDR by the way)
...

Sure within the next 3 years your gear is more or less old and replacing it 
with your next modell would
be a good improvement. SDR might increase the lifetime but e.g. going to 256QAM 
will be the next hardware.

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Glen Waldrop]

On list could be educational for the rest of us.




From: Adam Moffett 
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 9:08 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

Who's "you guys"?  I didn't work here when these decisions were made. :)

Some day maybe you can fill me in on what's been done wrong.  On or off list is 
fine.



  Once again, your deployment is non standard Adam. The way your sectors are 
configured the NLOS won't rock your world. We've all known that for a long 
time; that was the choice you guys made. 

   

Patrick Leary

M 727.501.3735 


   

 
   

   

   

  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
  Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 3:55 AM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

   

  There are also various ways to measure "working".  The way WiMax "works" NLOS 
does not rock my world.  I hope LTE does.

Population density is very low in some rural areas.  New construction has 
been pretty much nada, with the housing bust and wind farms, no new 
subdivisions, no farmettes.  The only houses are where farmhouses or 1 room 
schoolhouses used to stand.

 

Then factor in you just can’t achieve 100% market share.  No matter how 
good your service and price, some of the available subscribers will instead go 
with WISP competitors, DSL, satellite, mobile hotspot, or “I don’t need one of 
those newfangled computer thingies”.

 

So sometimes you’re doing good to get 15 subs.

 

Of course if you can double your range, you may quadruple the available 
market.

 

Someone on the list posted a few days back about not going through granite. 
 I assume even LTE can’t do that however.

 

 

From: Patrick Leary 

Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 7:41 PM

To: af@afmug.com 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

 

Alvarion did that. I admit, I'm not a fan of capping Glen. It is a gimmick. 
The hardware is what it is, and this hardware is expensive. 30dBm per port. 4 
tx/4rx. Power is expensive. The highest quality DSPs on the market. not 
consumer grade stuff with the sensitivity of your in home Wi-Fi router. We 
build our own phy from the ground up too, our own ATPC algorithms too. 

 

On the software, we do that though -- enabling modularity and scale as you 
need to. I think I need to do a dedicated webinar to this community to walk you 
guys (or those inclined) through it (any takers?). I do not think we can be a 
solution that makes sense where you only have 15 clients. That's the blunt 
truth. Unless you are doing 50 Mbps customers, I am not your micropop (but I 
can do that in some modest scale). That said, I wonder where that 15 number 
comes from? Can you please explain on what architecture that is based? Range? 
Height? Etc. If it is based on a micropop and even then on what just that pop 
can see, I'd say that's likely a model invented out of necessity due to the 
poor performance of the system you are using.

 

I had a guy on a call today. He zoomed me in on Google Earth to his "NLOS" 
area. Farmland with wind breaks and shade trees for the homes. He is at 400' 
and can't connect squat behind those breaks. In my world, that's LOS all the 
way, even at 150 ft. It is total garbage that so many systems to can't deal 
with that and you've all been fed that that is "normal." It is not. It is just 
gear with terrible specs where the only R&D is at the software level, and even 
that is scant. You do not have NLOS problems. You have equipment problems. 
How such a product ever was allowed to go to market as a "solution" for rural 
broadband is, to me, cynical and reflective of playing a market to skim 
opportunistic dollars from a market segment that sometimes seems to embrace 
abuse. Sort of like the poor 700 MHz owners who got sucked in to buying 20 year 
old Marconi WipLL repackaged as a 700 MHz "solution" because all there was to 
buy. Then vendors do that crap and THEN, THEN tell you there's no backward 
compatibility when they come out with something new? 

 

WISPs. Sometimes you guys drive me nuts. You are like cheerleaders that 
love to date the quarterbacks who abuse you. That is like selling a car that 
falls apart once you leave residential streets. None of you should ever have 
accepted these golf carts to run your fleets. Sometimes, cheap is just cheap.

 

Boy, I'm gonna hear it from my vendor peers, but this ain't a game or just 
a job for me. I damn sure hope it ain't that for you either.

 

  Patrick Leary

  M 727.501.3735 


 

   
     

 

     

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:08 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subje

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Adam Moffett]

Who's "you guys"?  I didn't work here when these decisions were made. :)

Some day maybe you can fill me in on what's been done wrong.  On or off 
list is fine.



Once again, your deployment is non standard Adam. The way your sectors 
are configured the NLOS won't rock your world. We've all known that 
for a long time; that was the choice you guys made.


*Patrick Leary*

***M*727.501.3735

<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>


*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Adam Moffett
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 04, 2015 3:55 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

There are also various ways to measure "working".  The way WiMax 
"works" NLOS does not rock my world.  I hope LTE does.


Population density is very low in some rural areas.  New
construction has been pretty much nada, with the housing bust and
wind farms, no new subdivisions, no farmettes.  The only houses
are where farmhouses or 1 room schoolhouses used to stand.

Then factor in you just can’t achieve 100% market share.  No
matter how good your service and price, some of the available
subscribers will instead go with WISP competitors, DSL, satellite,
mobile hotspot, or “I don’t need one of those newfangled computer
thingies”.

So sometimes you’re doing good to get 15 subs.

Of course if you can double your range, you may quadruple the
available market.

Someone on the list posted a few days back about not going through
granite.  I assume even LTE can’t do that however.

*From:*Patrick Leary <mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>

*Sent:*Tuesday, March 03, 2015 7:41 PM

    *To:*af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>

*Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

Alvarion did that. I admit, I'm not a fan of capping Glen. It is a
gimmick. The hardware is what it is, and this hardware is
expensive. 30dBm per port. 4 tx/4rx. Power is expensive. The
highest quality DSPs on the market. not consumer grade stuff with
the sensitivity of your in home Wi-Fi router. We build our own phy
from the ground up too, our own ATPC algorithms too.

On the software, we do that though -- enabling modularity and
scale as you need to. I think I need to do a dedicated webinar to
this community to walk you guys (or those inclined) through it
(any takers?). I do not think we can be a solution that makes
sense where you only have 15 clients. That's the blunt truth.
Unless you are doing 50 Mbps customers, I am not your micropop
(but I can do that in some modest scale). That said, I wonder
where that 15 number comes from? Can you please explain on what
architecture that is based? Range? Height? Etc. If it is based on
a micropop and even then on what just that pop can see, I'd say
that's likely a model invented out of necessity due to the poor
performance of the system you are using.

I had a guy on a call today. He zoomed me in on Google Earth to
his "NLOS" area. Farmland with wind breaks and shade trees for the
homes. He is at 400' and can't connect squat behind those breaks.
In my world, that's LOS all the way, even at 150 ft. It is total
garbage that so many systems to can't deal with that and you've
all been fed that that is "normal." It is not. It is just gear
with terrible specs where the only R&D is at the software level,
and even that is scant. You do not have NLOS problems. You
have equipment problems. How such a product ever was allowed to go
to market as a "solution" for rural broadband is, to me, cynical
and reflective of playing a market to skim opportunistic dollars
from a market segment that sometimes seems to embrace abuse. Sort
of like the poor 700 MHz owners who got sucked in to buying 20
year old Marconi WipLL repackaged as a 700 MHz "solution" because
all there was to buy. Then vendors do that crap and THEN, THEN
tell you there's no backward compatibility when they come out with
something new?

WISPs. Sometimes you guys drive me nuts. You are like cheerleaders
that love to date the quarterbacks who abuse you. That is like
selling a car that falls apart once you leave residential streets.
None of you should ever have accepted these golf carts to run your
fleets. Sometimes, cheap is just cheap.

Boy, I'm gonna hear it from my vendor peers, but this ain't a game
or just a job for me. I damn sure hope it ain't that for you either.

*Patrick Leary*

*M*727.501.3735

<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>


    *From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Glen Waldrop
*Sent:* Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:08 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

Sort of off topic, bu

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Patrick Leary]

Not everyone posts on lists Stefan. In fact, most do not. There are also plenty 
who are not interested in sharing their details, for a variety of reasons. 
Eventually someone will because at this point a good number of the frequent 
posters on at least the WISPA least have told me to expect them to trial.

Patrick Leary
 M 727.501.3735 






-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Stefan Englhardt
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 8:05 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback


> Pe ople have already ran it side by side with 450 and they're buying Telrad. 

Anyone does a writeup  of his comparison ?








 
 

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.

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Patrick Leary]

Once again, your deployment is non standard Adam. The way your sectors are 
configured the NLOS won't rock your world. We've all known that for a long 
time; that was the choice you guys made.

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image001.png@01D0565F.003E5030]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 3:55 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

There are also various ways to measure "working".  The way WiMax "works" NLOS 
does not rock my world.  I hope LTE does.
Population density is very low in some rural areas.  New construction has been 
pretty much nada, with the housing bust and wind farms, no new subdivisions, no 
farmettes.  The only houses are where farmhouses or 1 room schoolhouses used to 
stand.

Then factor in you just can’t achieve 100% market share.  No matter how good 
your service and price, some of the available subscribers will instead go with 
WISP competitors, DSL, satellite, mobile hotspot, or “I don’t need one of those 
newfangled computer thingies”.

So sometimes you’re doing good to get 15 subs.

Of course if you can double your range, you may quadruple the available market.

Someone on the list posted a few days back about not going through granite.  I 
assume even LTE can’t do that however.


From: Patrick Leary<mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 7:41 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

Alvarion did that. I admit, I'm not a fan of capping Glen. It is a gimmick. The 
hardware is what it is, and this hardware is expensive. 30dBm per port. 4 
tx/4rx. Power is expensive. The highest quality DSPs on the market. not 
consumer grade stuff with the sensitivity of your in home Wi-Fi router. We 
build our own phy from the ground up too, our own ATPC algorithms too.

On the software, we do that though -- enabling modularity and scale as you need 
to. I think I need to do a dedicated webinar to this community to walk you guys 
(or those inclined) through it (any takers?). I do not think we can be a 
solution that makes sense where you only have 15 clients. That's the blunt 
truth. Unless you are doing 50 Mbps customers, I am not your micropop (but I 
can do that in some modest scale). That said, I wonder where that 15 number 
comes from? Can you please explain on what architecture that is based? Range? 
Height? Etc. If it is based on a micropop and even then on what just that pop 
can see, I'd say that's likely a model invented out of necessity due to the 
poor performance of the system you are using.

I had a guy on a call today. He zoomed me in on Google Earth to his "NLOS" 
area. Farmland with wind breaks and shade trees for the homes. He is at 400' 
and can't connect squat behind those breaks. In my world, that's LOS all the 
way, even at 150 ft. It is total garbage that so many systems to can't deal 
with that and you've all been fed that that is "normal." It is not. It is just 
gear with terrible specs where the only R&D is at the software level, and even 
that is scant. You do not have NLOS problems. You have equipment problems. 
How such a product ever was allowed to go to market as a "solution" for rural 
broadband is, to me, cynical and reflective of playing a market to skim 
opportunistic dollars from a market segment that sometimes seems to embrace 
abuse. Sort of like the poor 700 MHz owners who got sucked in to buying 20 year 
old Marconi WipLL repackaged as a 700 MHz "solution" because all there was to 
buy. Then vendors do that crap and THEN, THEN tell you there's no backward 
compatibility when they come out with something new?

WISPs. Sometimes you guys drive me nuts. You are like cheerleaders that love to 
date the quarterbacks who abuse you. That is like selling a car that falls 
apart once you leave residential streets. None of you should ever have accepted 
these golf carts to run your fleets. Sometimes, cheap is just cheap.

Boy, I'm gonna hear it from my vendor peers, but this ain't a game or just a 
job for me. I damn sure hope it ain't that for you either.

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image002.png@01D0565F.003E5030]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:08 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

Sort of off topic, but what would be the smallest AP we could get?

I'm thinking about using this system on a few of my towers to make sure we 
never leave without a new customer, but I serve a very rural area.

I have some towers with 15 clients.

Is an omni + GPS sync or narrow channel out of the question?



- Original Message -
From: Patrick Leary<mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>
T

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Patrick Leary]

The shoot out has already been done, by numerous WISPs. It was not even close. 
I disagree with the "3 years it is old stuff." The COMPACTs are SDRs with lots 
of latent capacity.

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image001.png@01D0565E.5DE38210]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Stefan Englhardt
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 1:01 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

We wanted to do a test but stopped due to pricing. It is Alvarion-Style. Every 
mount, cable, ... seems to be golden. Every goodie is an upgrade option.
And as with other gear. 3 years from now it is old stuff.
Our ROI is better doing smaller cells and use cheaper gear.
Towers will stay beyond 3 years. Everything I mount ...

Nevertheless a shootout between PMP 450 and Compact would be great to see. We 
have seen so much and intense marketing in the past. Even Patrick can't cry 
loud enough...

So gimme a real live comparison including pricing between two 4 sector towers 
to make me a believer.


 Ursprüngliche Nachricht 
Von: af-requ...@afmug.com<mailto:af-requ...@afmug.com>
Datum: 04.03.2015 06:22 (GMT+01:00)
An: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Betreff: Af Digest, Vol 7, Issue 160

Send Af mailing list submissions to
af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
af-requ...@afmug.com<mailto:af-requ...@afmug.com>

You can reach the person managing the list at
af-ow...@afmug.com<mailto:af-ow...@afmug.com>

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Af digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: New feedback (Glen Waldrop)


--

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 23:20:21 -0600
From: "Glen Waldrop" mailto:gwl...@cngwireless.net>>
To: mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
Message-ID: <559A42CC5A9145A39DFBEAFC8EED95CF@ziggy7>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Close, south of Tuscaloosa, west of Montgomery. Same basic geography though, 
hills, cows, fish and trees.

Might be a redneck spread out amongst the trees.

Might be one of them...


  - Original Message -
  From: CBB - Jay Fuller
  To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
  Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 11:19 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback



  He's (glen)  between ttown and Montgomery patrick

  Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone


  - Reply message -
  From: "Glen Waldrop" mailto:gwl...@cngwireless.net>>
  To: mailto:af@afmug.com>>
  Subject: [AFMUG] New feedback
  Date: Tue, Mar 3, 2015 11:10 PM




  Tree density is seriously mixed.

  Some places it is ridiculous, 100+ year growth, old forests. Nearly half of 
my coverage area is over farmland (beef, catfish) so those places are usually 
an easy shot.

  The truly irritating thing about wireless in this area is cedar trees. There 
won't be one tree in the yard, but there will almost always be a line of cedar 
across the road or something, somewhere near a fence line. Anyone that has the 
phobia that RF is killing us just needs to plant cedar.

  I've got a few places that if your system could serve you'd get a shining 
recommendation from me. Nothing short of going over cedar seems to work. 900MHz 
seems to get a half mile or less if cedar is involved. I can get over a mile 
away with the test AP on the ground and a yagi in my truck through hardwood and 
pine, but cedar just stops it cold.

  Mike Hammet may have a point though. I may not be your target audience. I 
might not get a return on my investment, but it would be irresponsible of me to 
not evaluate another tool to find out.


    ----- Original Message -
From: Patrick Leary
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:48 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback


I suspect you could pull off omnis then. How's the tree density?



  Patrick Leary

  M 727.501.3735










From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:19 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback



The 15 number comes from rural area. I have some towers that can only hit a 
few homes. Of those few, some still have OTA TV and rotary phones. They have no 
need nor want for Internet. Don't get hung up on that.



I'm looking at probably 4 of these strategically placed in my network to 
cover any blind spots I might have over my coverage area.


I'm not following, "capping"?

Aside from that, this email came off more than a bit condese

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Stefan Englhardt]

> Pe ople have already ran it side by side with 450 and they're buying Telrad.

Anyone does a writeup  of his comparison ?

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Mike Hammett]

Pe ople have already ran it side by side with 450 and they're buying Telrad. 




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



- Original Message -

From: "Stefan Englhardt"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2015 12:00:46 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback 

We wanted to do a test but stopped due to pricing. It is Alvarion-Style. Every 
mount, cable, ... seems to be golden. Every goodie is an upgrade option. 
And as with other gear. 3 years from now it is old stuff. 
Our ROI is better doing smaller cells and use cheaper gear. 
Towers will stay beyond 3 years. Everything I mount ... 


Nevertheless a shootout between PMP 450 and Compact would be great to see. We 
have seen so much and intense marketing in the past. Even Patrick can't cry 
loud enough... 


So gimme a real live comparison including pricing between two 4 sector towers 
to make me a believer. 

 Ursprüngliche Nachricht  
Von: af-requ...@afmug.com 
Datum: 04.03.2015 06:22 (GMT+01:00) 
An: af@afmug.com 
Betreff: Af Digest, Vol 7, Issue 160 

Send Af mailing list submissions to 
af@afmug.com 

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit 
http://afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af 
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to 
af-requ...@afmug.com 

You can reach the person managing the list at 
af-ow...@afmug.com 

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific 
than "Re: Contents of Af digest..." 


Today's Topics: 

1. Re: New feedback (Glen Waldrop) 


-- 

Message: 1 
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 23:20:21 -0600 
From: "Glen Waldrop"  
To:  
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback 
Message-ID: <559A42CC5A9145A39DFBEAFC8EED95CF@ziggy7> 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" 

Close, south of Tuscaloosa, west of Montgomery. Same basic geography though, 
hills, cows, fish and trees. 

Might be a redneck spread out amongst the trees. 

Might be one of them... 


- Original Message - 
From: CBB - Jay Fuller 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 11:19 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback 



He's (glen) between ttown and Montgomery patrick 

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone 


- Reply message - 
From: "Glen Waldrop"  
To:  
Subject: [AFMUG] New feedback 
Date: Tue, Mar 3, 2015 11:10 PM 




Tree density is seriously mixed. 

Some places it is ridiculous, 100+ year growth, old forests. Nearly half of my 
coverage area is over farmland (beef, catfish) so those places are usually an 
easy shot. 

The truly irritating thing about wireless in this area is cedar trees. There 
won't be one tree in the yard, but there will almost always be a line of cedar 
across the road or something, somewhere near a fence line. Anyone that has the 
phobia that RF is killing us just needs to plant cedar. 

I've got a few places that if your system could serve you'd get a shining 
recommendation from me. Nothing short of going over cedar seems to work. 900MHz 
seems to get a half mile or less if cedar is involved. I can get over a mile 
away with the test AP on the ground and a yagi in my truck through hardwood and 
pine, but cedar just stops it cold. 

Mike Hammet may have a point though. I may not be your target audience. I might 
not get a return on my investment, but it would be irresponsible of me to not 
evaluate another tool to find out. 


- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:48 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback 


I suspect you could pull off omnis then. How's the tree density? 



Patrick Leary 

M 727.501.3735 










From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop 
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:19 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback 



The 15 number comes from rural area. I have some towers that can only hit a few 
homes. Of those few, some still have OTA TV and rotary phones. They have no 
need nor want for Internet. Don't get hung up on that. 



I'm looking at probably 4 of these strategically placed in my network to cover 
any blind spots I might have over my coverage area. 


I'm not following, "capping"? 

Aside from that, this email came off more than a bit condesending. 





----- Original Message - 

From: Patrick Leary 

To: af@afmug.com 

Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 7:41 PM 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback 



Alvarion did that. I admit, I'm not a fan of capping Glen. It is a gimmick. The 
hardware is what it is, and this hardware is expensive. 30dBm per port. 4 
tx/4rx. Power is expensive. The highest quality DSPs on the market. not 
consumer grade stuff with the sensitivity of your in home Wi-Fi router. We 
build our own phy from the ground up too, our own ATPC algorithms t

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Adam Moffett]

There are also various ways to measure "working".  The way WiMax "works" 
NLOS does not rock my world.  I hope LTE does.


Population density is very low in some rural areas.  New construction 
has been pretty much nada, with the housing bust and wind farms, no 
new subdivisions, no farmettes.  The only houses are where farmhouses 
or 1 room schoolhouses used to stand.
Then factor in you just can’t achieve 100% market share. No matter how 
good your service and price, some of the available subscribers will 
instead go with WISP competitors, DSL, satellite, mobile hotspot, or 
“I don’t need one of those newfangled computer thingies”.

So sometimes you’re doing good to get 15 subs.
Of course if you can double your range, you may quadruple the 
available market.
Someone on the list posted a few days back about not going through 
granite.  I assume even LTE can’t do that however.

*From:* Patrick Leary <mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>
*Sent:* Tuesday, March 03, 2015 7:41 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

Alvarion did that. I admit, I'm not a fan of capping Glen. It is a 
gimmick. The hardware is what it is, and this hardware is expensive. 
30dBm per port. 4 tx/4rx. Power is expensive. The highest quality DSPs 
on the market. not consumer grade stuff with the sensitivity of your 
in home Wi-Fi router. We build our own phy from the ground up too, our 
own ATPC algorithms too.


On the software, we do that though -- enabling modularity and scale as 
you need to. I think I need to do a dedicated webinar to this 
community to walk you guys (or those inclined) through it (any 
takers?). I do not think we can be a solution that makes sense where 
you only have 15 clients. That's the blunt truth. Unless you are doing 
50 Mbps customers, I am not your micropop (but I can do that in some 
modest scale). That said, I wonder where that 15 number comes from? 
Can you please explain on what architecture that is based? Range? 
Height? Etc. If it is based on a micropop and even then on what just 
that pop can see, I'd say that's likely a model invented out of 
necessity due to the poor performance of the system you are using.


I had a guy on a call today. He zoomed me in on Google Earth to his 
"NLOS" area. Farmland with wind breaks and shade trees for the homes. 
He is at 400' and can't connect squat behind those breaks. In my 
world, that's LOS all the way, even at 150 ft. It is total garbage 
that so many systems to can't deal with that and you've all been fed 
that that is "normal." It is not. It is just gear with terrible specs 
where the only R&D is at the software level, and even that is scant. 
You do not have NLOS problems. You have equipment problems. How 
such a product ever was allowed to go to market as a "solution" for 
rural broadband is, to me, cynical and reflective of playing a market 
to skim opportunistic dollars from a market segment that sometimes 
seems to embrace abuse. Sort of like the poor 700 MHz owners who got 
sucked in to buying 20 year old Marconi WipLL repackaged as a 700 MHz 
"solution" because all there was to buy. Then vendors do that crap and 
THEN, THEN tell you there's no backward compatibility when they come 
out with something new?


WISPs. Sometimes you guys drive me nuts. You are like cheerleaders 
that love to date the quarterbacks who abuse you. That is like selling 
a car that falls apart once you leave residential streets. None of you 
should ever have accepted these golf carts to run your fleets. 
Sometimes, cheap is just cheap.


Boy, I'm gonna hear it from my vendor peers, but this ain't a game or 
just a job for me. I damn sure hope it ain't that for you either.


*Patrick Leary*

***M*727.501.3735

<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>


*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Glen Waldrop
*Sent:* Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:08 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

Sort of off topic, but what would be the smallest AP we could get?

I'm thinking about using this system on a few of my towers to make 
sure we never leave without a new customer, but I serve a very rural area.


I have some towers with 15 clients.

Is an omni + GPS sync or narrow channel out of the question?

- Original Message -

*From:*Patrick Leary <mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>

*To:*tel...@wispa.org <mailto:tel...@wispa.org> ; af@afmug.com
<mailto:af@afmug.com>

*Sent:*Tuesday, March 03, 2015 4:42 PM

*Subject:*[AFMUG] New feedback

This is an interesting bit of commentary from one of our new
customers. If he wishes to identify himself, he will

*Patrick Leary*

*M*727.501.3735

<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>


*From:*

*Sent:*Tuesday, March 03, 2015 2:31 AM
*To:* Patrick Leary; Nick Dewar

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Stefan Englhardt]

We wanted to do a test but stopped due to pricing. It is Alvarion-Style. Every 
mount, cable, ... seems to be golden. Every goodie is an upgrade option.
And as with other gear. 3 years from now it is old stuff. 
Our ROI is better doing smaller cells and use cheaper gear.
Towers will stay beyond 3 years. Everything I mount ...

Nevertheless a shootout between PMP 450 and Compact would be great to see. We 
have seen so much and intense marketing in the past. Even Patrick can't cry 
loud enough...

So gimme a real live comparison including pricing between two 4 sector towers 
to make me a believer.

 Ursprüngliche Nachricht 
Von: af-requ...@afmug.com 
Datum: 04.03.2015  06:22  (GMT+01:00) 
An: af@afmug.com 
Betreff: Af Digest, Vol 7, Issue 160 

Send Af mailing list submissions to
af@afmug.com

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
af-requ...@afmug.com

You can reach the person managing the list at
af-ow...@afmug.com

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Af digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: New feedback (Glen Waldrop)


--

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 23:20:21 -0600
From: "Glen Waldrop" 
To: 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
Message-ID: <559A42CC5A9145A39DFBEAFC8EED95CF@ziggy7>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Close, south of Tuscaloosa, west of Montgomery. Same basic geography though, 
hills, cows, fish and trees.

Might be a redneck spread out amongst the trees.

Might be one of them...


  - Original Message - 
  From: CBB - Jay Fuller 
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 11:19 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback



  He's (glen)  between ttown and Montgomery patrick

  Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone


  - Reply message -
  From: "Glen Waldrop" 
  To: 
  Subject: [AFMUG] New feedback
  Date: Tue, Mar 3, 2015 11:10 PM




  Tree density is seriously mixed.

  Some places it is ridiculous, 100+ year growth, old forests. Nearly half of 
my coverage area is over farmland (beef, catfish) so those places are usually 
an easy shot.

  The truly irritating thing about wireless in this area is cedar trees. There 
won't be one tree in the yard, but there will almost always be a line of cedar 
across the road or something, somewhere near a fence line. Anyone that has the 
phobia that RF is killing us just needs to plant cedar.

  I've got a few places that if your system could serve you'd get a shining 
recommendation from me. Nothing short of going over cedar seems to work. 900MHz 
seems to get a half mile or less if cedar is involved. I can get over a mile 
away with the test AP on the ground and a yagi in my truck through hardwood and 
pine, but cedar just stops it cold.

  Mike Hammet may have a point though. I may not be your target audience. I 
might not get a return on my investment, but it would be irresponsible of me to 
not evaluate another tool to find out.


- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary 
    To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:48 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback


I suspect you could pull off omnis then. How's the tree density?

 

  Patrick Leary

  M 727.501.3735 


 
   
 

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
    Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:19 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

 

The 15 number comes from rural area. I have some towers that can only hit a 
few homes. Of those few, some still have OTA TV and rotary phones. They have no 
need nor want for Internet. Don't get hung up on that.

 

I'm looking at probably 4 of these strategically placed in my network to 
cover any blind spots I might have over my coverage area.


I'm not following, "capping"?

Aside from that, this email came off more than a bit condesending.

 

 

  - Original Message - 

  From: Patrick Leary 

  To: af@afmug.com 

  Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 7:41 PM

  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

   

  Alvarion did that. I admit, I'm not a fan of capping Glen. It is a 
gimmick. The hardware is what it is, and this hardware is expensive. 30dBm per 
port. 4 tx/4rx. Power is expensive. The highest quality DSPs on the market. not 
consumer grade stuff with the sensitivity of your in home Wi-Fi router. We 
build our own phy from the ground up too, our own ATPC algorithms too. 

   

  On the software, we do that though -- enabling modularity and scale as 
you need to. I think I need to do a dedicated webinar to this community to

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Patrick Leary]

86 the idea the omnis... When I come visit Jay, I'll slip on down for a bit of 
a detour to see you.

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image001.png@01D05612.62F77910]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 12:11 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

Tree density is seriously mixed.

Some places it is ridiculous, 100+ year growth, old forests. Nearly half of my 
coverage area is over farmland (beef, catfish) so those places are usually an 
easy shot.

The truly irritating thing about wireless in this area is cedar trees. There 
won't be one tree in the yard, but there will almost always be a line of cedar 
across the road or something, somewhere near a fence line. Anyone that has the 
phobia that RF is killing us just needs to plant cedar.

I've got a few places that if your system could serve you'd get a shining 
recommendation from me. Nothing short of going over cedar seems to work. 900MHz 
seems to get a half mile or less if cedar is involved. I can get over a mile 
away with the test AP on the ground and a yagi in my truck through hardwood and 
pine, but cedar just stops it cold.

Mike Hammet may have a point though. I may not be your target audience. I might 
not get a return on my investment, but it would be irresponsible of me to not 
evaluate another tool to find out.


- Original Message -
From: Patrick Leary<mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:48 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

I suspect you could pull off omnis then. How's the tree density?

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image002.png@01D05612.62F77910]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:19 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

The 15 number comes from rural area. I have some towers that can only hit a few 
homes. Of those few, some still have OTA TV and rotary phones. They have no 
need nor want for Internet. Don't get hung up on that.

I'm looking at probably 4 of these strategically placed in my network to cover 
any blind spots I might have over my coverage area.

I'm not following, "capping"?

Aside from that, this email came off more than a bit condesending.


- Original Message -
From: Patrick Leary<mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

Alvarion did that. I admit, I'm not a fan of capping Glen. It is a gimmick. The 
hardware is what it is, and this hardware is expensive. 30dBm per port. 4 
tx/4rx. Power is expensive. The highest quality DSPs on the market. not 
consumer grade stuff with the sensitivity of your in home Wi-Fi router. We 
build our own phy from the ground up too, our own ATPC algorithms too.

On the software, we do that though -- enabling modularity and scale as you need 
to. I think I need to do a dedicated webinar to this community to walk you guys 
(or those inclined) through it (any takers?). I do not think we can be a 
solution that makes sense where you only have 15 clients. That's the blunt 
truth. Unless you are doing 50 Mbps customers, I am not your micropop (but I 
can do that in some modest scale). That said, I wonder where that 15 number 
comes from? Can you please explain on what architecture that is based? Range? 
Height? Etc. If it is based on a micropop and even then on what just that pop 
can see, I'd say that's likely a model invented out of necessity due to the 
poor performance of the system you are using.

I had a guy on a call today. He zoomed me in on Google Earth to his "NLOS" 
area. Farmland with wind breaks and shade trees for the homes. He is at 400' 
and can't connect squat behind those breaks. In my world, that's LOS all the 
way, even at 150 ft. It is total garbage that so many systems to can't deal 
with that and you've all been fed that that is "normal." It is not. It is just 
gear with terrible specs where the only R&D is at the software level, and even 
that is scant. You do not have NLOS problems. You have equipment problems. 
How such a product ever was allowed to go to market as a "solution" for rural 
broadband is, to me, cynical and reflective of playing a market to skim 
opportunistic dollars from a market segment that sometimes seems to embrace 
abuse. Sort of like the poor 700 MHz owners who got sucked in to buying 20 year 
old Marconi WipLL repackaged as a 700 MHz "solution" because all there was to 
buy. Then vendors do that crap and THEN, THEN tell you there's no backward 
compatibility when they come out with something new?

WISPs. Sometimes you guys drive me n

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Patrick Leary]

I certainly know that area well. I lived in GA for 10 years and did lots of 
work in my fiber days around Tuscaloosa (and pretty much everywhere else in the 
south).

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image001.png@01D05612.0EF483D0]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 12:23 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

Close, south of Tuscaloosa, west of Montgomery. Same basic geography though, 
hills, cows, fish and trees.

Might be a redneck spread out amongst the trees.

Might be one of them...


- Original Message -
From: CBB - Jay Fuller<mailto:par...@cyberbroadband.net>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 11:19 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback


He's (glen)  between ttown and Montgomery patrick

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
- Reply message -
From: "Glen Waldrop" mailto:gwl...@cngwireless.net>>
To: mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: [AFMUG] New feedback
Date: Tue, Mar 3, 2015 11:10 PM

Tree density is seriously mixed.

Some places it is ridiculous, 100+ year growth, old forests. Nearly half of my 
coverage area is over farmland (beef, catfish) so those places are usually an 
easy shot.

The truly irritating thing about wireless in this area is cedar trees. There 
won't be one tree in the yard, but there will almost always be a line of cedar 
across the road or something, somewhere near a fence line. Anyone that has the 
phobia that RF is killing us just needs to plant cedar.

I've got a few places that if your system could serve you'd get a shining 
recommendation from me. Nothing short of going over cedar seems to work. 900MHz 
seems to get a half mile or less if cedar is involved. I can get over a mile 
away with the test AP on the ground and a yagi in my truck through hardwood and 
pine, but cedar just stops it cold.

Mike Hammet may have a point though. I may not be your target audience. I might 
not get a return on my investment, but it would be irresponsible of me to not 
evaluate another tool to find out.


- Original Message -
From: Patrick Leary<mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:48 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

I suspect you could pull off omnis then. How's the tree density?

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:EFF4838098994042AC9A2ADB3F7C6030@ziggy7]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:19 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

The 15 number comes from rural area. I have some towers that can only hit a few 
homes. Of those few, some still have OTA TV and rotary phones. They have no 
need nor want for Internet. Don't get hung up on that.

I'm looking at probably 4 of these strategically placed in my network to cover 
any blind spots I might have over my coverage area.

I'm not following, "capping"?

Aside from that, this email came off more than a bit condesending.


- Original Message -
From: Patrick Leary<mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

Alvarion did that. I admit, I'm not a fan of capping Glen. It is a gimmick. The 
hardware is what it is, and this hardware is expensive. 30dBm per port. 4 
tx/4rx. Power is expensive. The highest quality DSPs on the market. not 
consumer grade stuff with the sensitivity of your in home Wi-Fi router. We 
build our own phy from the ground up too, our own ATPC algorithms too.

On the software, we do that though -- enabling modularity and scale as you need 
to. I think I need to do a dedicated webinar to this community to walk you guys 
(or those inclined) through it (any takers?). I do not think we can be a 
solution that makes sense where you only have 15 clients. That's the blunt 
truth. Unless you are doing 50 Mbps customers, I am not your micropop (but I 
can do that in some modest scale). That said, I wonder where that 15 number 
comes from? Can you please explain on what architecture that is based? Range? 
Height? Etc. If it is based on a micropop and even then on what just that pop 
can see, I'd say that's likely a model invented out of necessity due to the 
poor performance of the system you are using.

I had a guy on a call today. He zoomed me in on Google Earth to his "NLOS" 
area. Farmland with wind breaks and shade trees for the homes. He is at 400' 
and can't connect squat behind those breaks. In my world, that's LOS all the 
way, even at 150 ft. It is total garbage that so many systems to can't deal 
with that and you've all been fed that that is "normal." It is not.

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Glen Waldrop]

Close, south of Tuscaloosa, west of Montgomery. Same basic geography though, 
hills, cows, fish and trees.

Might be a redneck spread out amongst the trees.

Might be one of them...


  - Original Message - 
  From: CBB - Jay Fuller 
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 11:19 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback



  He's (glen)  between ttown and Montgomery patrick

  Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone


  - Reply message -
  From: "Glen Waldrop" 
  To: 
  Subject: [AFMUG] New feedback
  Date: Tue, Mar 3, 2015 11:10 PM




  Tree density is seriously mixed.

  Some places it is ridiculous, 100+ year growth, old forests. Nearly half of 
my coverage area is over farmland (beef, catfish) so those places are usually 
an easy shot.

  The truly irritating thing about wireless in this area is cedar trees. There 
won't be one tree in the yard, but there will almost always be a line of cedar 
across the road or something, somewhere near a fence line. Anyone that has the 
phobia that RF is killing us just needs to plant cedar.

  I've got a few places that if your system could serve you'd get a shining 
recommendation from me. Nothing short of going over cedar seems to work. 900MHz 
seems to get a half mile or less if cedar is involved. I can get over a mile 
away with the test AP on the ground and a yagi in my truck through hardwood and 
pine, but cedar just stops it cold.

  Mike Hammet may have a point though. I may not be your target audience. I 
might not get a return on my investment, but it would be irresponsible of me to 
not evaluate another tool to find out.


- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:48 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback


I suspect you could pull off omnis then. How's the tree density?

 

  Patrick Leary

  M 727.501.3735 


 
   
 

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:19 PM
    To: af@afmug.com
    Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

 

The 15 number comes from rural area. I have some towers that can only hit a 
few homes. Of those few, some still have OTA TV and rotary phones. They have no 
need nor want for Internet. Don't get hung up on that.

 

I'm looking at probably 4 of these strategically placed in my network to 
cover any blind spots I might have over my coverage area.


I'm not following, "capping"?

Aside from that, this email came off more than a bit condesending.

 

 

  - Original Message - 

  From: Patrick Leary 

  To: af@afmug.com 

      Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 7:41 PM

  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

   

  Alvarion did that. I admit, I'm not a fan of capping Glen. It is a 
gimmick. The hardware is what it is, and this hardware is expensive. 30dBm per 
port. 4 tx/4rx. Power is expensive. The highest quality DSPs on the market. not 
consumer grade stuff with the sensitivity of your in home Wi-Fi router. We 
build our own phy from the ground up too, our own ATPC algorithms too. 

   

  On the software, we do that though -- enabling modularity and scale as 
you need to. I think I need to do a dedicated webinar to this community to walk 
you guys (or those inclined) through it (any takers?). I do not think we can be 
a solution that makes sense where you only have 15 clients. That's the blunt 
truth. Unless you are doing 50 Mbps customers, I am not your micropop (but I 
can do that in some modest scale). That said, I wonder where that 15 number 
comes from? Can you please explain on what architecture that is based? Range? 
Height? Etc. If it is based on a micropop and even then on what just that pop 
can see, I'd say that's likely a model invented out of necessity due to the 
poor performance of the system you are using.

   

  I had a guy on a call today. He zoomed me in on Google Earth to his 
"NLOS" area. Farmland with wind breaks and shade trees for the homes. He is at 
400' and can't connect squat behind those breaks. In my world, that's LOS all 
the way, even at 150 ft. It is total garbage that so many systems to can't deal 
with that and you've all been fed that that is "normal." It is not. It is just 
gear with terrible specs where the only R&D is at the software level, and even 
that is scant. You do not have NLOS problems. You have equipment problems. 
How such a product ever was allowed to go to market as a "solution" for rural 
broadband is, to me, cynical and reflective of playing a market to skim 
opportunistic dollars from a market segment that sometimes seems to embrace 
abuse. Sort of like the poor 700 MHz owners who got sucked in to buying 20 year 
old M

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[CBB - Jay Fuller]

He's (glen)  between ttown and Montgomery patrick

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone

- Reply message -
From: "Glen Waldrop" 
To: 
Subject: [AFMUG] New feedback
Date: Tue, Mar 3, 2015 11:10 PM
Tree density is seriously mixed.Some places 
it is ridiculous, 100+ year growth, old forests. Nearly half of my coverage 
area 
is over farmland (beef, catfish) so those places are usually an easy 
shot.

The truly irritating thing about wireless in this 
area is cedar trees. There won't be one tree in the yard, but there will 
almost always be a line of cedar across the road or something, somewhere near a 
fence line. Anyone that has the phobia that RF is killing us just needs to 
plant cedar.

I've got a few places that if your system could 
serve you'd get a shining recommendation from me. Nothing short of going over 
cedar seems to work. 900MHz seems to get a half mile or less if cedar is
involved. I can get over a mile away with the test AP on the ground and a yagi 
in my truck through hardwood and pine, but cedar just stops it cold.Mike 
Hammet may have a point though. I may not be your target audience. I might not 
get a return on my investment, but it would be irresponsible of me to 
not evaluate another tool to find out.



- Original Message - 
From: 
Patrick Leary 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:48 
PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback


I suspect you could pull off 
omnis then. How's the tree density?






Patrick 
Leary
M 
727.501.3735 












From: Af 
[mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen WaldropSent: 
Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:19 PMTo: af@afmug.comSubject: Re: [AFMUG] New 
feedback


The 15 number comes 
from rural area. I have some towers that can only hit a few homes. Of those 
few, some still have OTA TV and rotary phones. They have no need nor want for 
Internet. Don't get hung up on that.



I'm looking at 
probably 4 of these strategically placed in my network to cover any blind 
spots I might have over my coverage area.

I'm not 
following, "capping"?Aside from that, this email came off more than a 
bit condesending.






- Original 
Message - 

From: Patrick Leary 


To: af@afmug.com 


Sent: Tuesday, March 
03, 2015 7:41 PM

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New 
feedback


Alvarion did that. I admit, 
I'm not a fan of capping Glen. It is a gimmick. The hardware is what it is, 
and this hardware is expensive. 30dBm per port. 4 tx/4rx. Power is 
expensive. The highest quality DSPs on the market. not consumer grade stuff 
with the sensitivity of your in home Wi-Fi router. We build our own phy from 
the ground up too, our own ATPC algorithms too. 

On the software, we do that 
though -- enabling modularity and scale as you need to. I think I need to do 
a dedicated webinar to this community to walk you guys (or those inclined) 
through it (any takers?). I do not think we can be a solution that makes 
sense where you only have 15 clients. That's the blunt truth. Unless you are 
doing 50 Mbps customers, I am not your micropop (but I can do that in some 
modest scale). That said, I wonder where that 15 number comes from? Can you 
please explain on what architecture that is based? Range? Height? Etc. If it 
is based on a micropop and even then on what just that pop can see, I'd say 
that's likely a model invented out of necessity due to the poor performance 
of the system you are using.

I had a guy on a call today. 
He zoomed me in on Google Earth to his "NLOS" area. Farmland with wind 
breaks and shade trees for the homes. He is at 400' and can't connect squat 
behind those breaks. In my world, that's LOS all the way, even at 150 ft. It 
is total garbage that so many systems to can't deal with that and you've all 
been fed that that is "normal." It is not. It is just gear with terrible 
specs where the only R&D is at the software level, and even that is 
scant. You do not have NLOS problems. You have equipment problems. How 
such a product ever was allowed to go to market as a "solution" for rural 
broadband is, to me, cynical and reflective of playing a market to skim 
opportunistic dollars from a market segment that sometimes seems to embrace 
abuse. Sort of like the poor 700 MHz owners who got sucked in to buying 20 
year old Marconi WipLL repackaged as a 700 MHz "solution" because all there 
was to buy. Then vendors do that crap and THEN, THEN tell you there's no 
backward compatibility when they come out with something new? 


WISPs. Sometimes you guys 
drive me nuts. You are like cheerleaders that love to date the quarterbacks 
who abuse you. That is like selling a car that falls apart once you leave 
residential streets. None of you should ever have accepted these golf carts 
to run your fleets. Sometimes, cheap is just cheap.

Boy, I'm gonna hear it from 
my vendo

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Glen Waldrop]

Tree density is seriously mixed.

Some places it is ridiculous, 100+ year growth, old forests. Nearly half of my 
coverage area is over farmland (beef, catfish) so those places are usually an 
easy shot.

The truly irritating thing about wireless in this area is cedar trees. There 
won't be one tree in the yard, but there will almost always be a line of cedar 
across the road or something, somewhere near a fence line. Anyone that has the 
phobia that RF is killing us just needs to plant cedar.

I've got a few places that if your system could serve you'd get a shining 
recommendation from me. Nothing short of going over cedar seems to work. 900MHz 
seems to get a half mile or less if cedar is involved. I can get over a mile 
away with the test AP on the ground and a yagi in my truck through hardwood and 
pine, but cedar just stops it cold.

Mike Hammet may have a point though. I may not be your target audience. I might 
not get a return on my investment, but it would be irresponsible of me to not 
evaluate another tool to find out.


  - Original Message - 
  From: Patrick Leary 
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:48 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback


  I suspect you could pull off omnis then. How's the tree density?

   

Patrick Leary

M 727.501.3735 


   
 
   

   

   

  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
  Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:19 PM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

   

  The 15 number comes from rural area. I have some towers that can only hit a 
few homes. Of those few, some still have OTA TV and rotary phones. They have no 
need nor want for Internet. Don't get hung up on that.

   

  I'm looking at probably 4 of these strategically placed in my network to 
cover any blind spots I might have over my coverage area.


  I'm not following, "capping"?

  Aside from that, this email came off more than a bit condesending.

   

   

- Original Message - 

From: Patrick Leary 

To: af@afmug.com 

Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 7:41 PM

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

 

Alvarion did that. I admit, I'm not a fan of capping Glen. It is a gimmick. 
The hardware is what it is, and this hardware is expensive. 30dBm per port. 4 
tx/4rx. Power is expensive. The highest quality DSPs on the market. not 
consumer grade stuff with the sensitivity of your in home Wi-Fi router. We 
build our own phy from the ground up too, our own ATPC algorithms too. 

 

On the software, we do that though -- enabling modularity and scale as you 
need to. I think I need to do a dedicated webinar to this community to walk you 
guys (or those inclined) through it (any takers?). I do not think we can be a 
solution that makes sense where you only have 15 clients. That's the blunt 
truth. Unless you are doing 50 Mbps customers, I am not your micropop (but I 
can do that in some modest scale). That said, I wonder where that 15 number 
comes from? Can you please explain on what architecture that is based? Range? 
Height? Etc. If it is based on a micropop and even then on what just that pop 
can see, I'd say that's likely a model invented out of necessity due to the 
poor performance of the system you are using.

 

I had a guy on a call today. He zoomed me in on Google Earth to his "NLOS" 
area. Farmland with wind breaks and shade trees for the homes. He is at 400' 
and can't connect squat behind those breaks. In my world, that's LOS all the 
way, even at 150 ft. It is total garbage that so many systems to can't deal 
with that and you've all been fed that that is "normal." It is not. It is just 
gear with terrible specs where the only R&D is at the software level, and even 
that is scant. You do not have NLOS problems. You have equipment problems. 
How such a product ever was allowed to go to market as a "solution" for rural 
broadband is, to me, cynical and reflective of playing a market to skim 
opportunistic dollars from a market segment that sometimes seems to embrace 
abuse. Sort of like the poor 700 MHz owners who got sucked in to buying 20 year 
old Marconi WipLL repackaged as a 700 MHz "solution" because all there was to 
buy. Then vendors do that crap and THEN, THEN tell you there's no backward 
compatibility when they come out with something new? 

 

WISPs. Sometimes you guys drive me nuts. You are like cheerleaders that 
love to date the quarterbacks who abuse you. That is like selling a car that 
falls apart once you leave residential streets. None of you should ever have 
accepted these golf carts to run your fleets. Sometimes, cheap is just cheap.

 

Boy, I'm gonna hear it from my vendor peers, but this ain't a game or just 
a job for me. I damn sure hope it ai

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Patrick Leary]

Understood Jason. And expected. I certainly don't take it personally. Lots of 
snake oil has been peddled in this business.

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image001.png@01D0560D.78462190]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jason McKemie
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 11:26 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

"If" being the operative term. Until I personally test it, or I hear from other 
regulars on this list that are using it, it's pie in the sky to me. I'm not 
closed off to the idea, just skeptical for obvious reasons.

On Tuesday, March 3, 2015, Mike Hammett 
mailto:af...@ics-il.net>> wrote:
Patrick's not here to make friends.

He does have a point, though. If a product is revolutionary, you can't look at 
it the same way everything else.


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

[Image removed by sender.]<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[Image removed by 
sender.]<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[Image 
removed by 
sender.]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[Image
 removed by sender.]<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>

From: "Glen Waldrop" 
>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 9:19:22 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
The 15 number comes from rural area. I have some towers that can only hit a few 
homes. Of those few, some still have OTA TV and rotary phones. They have no 
need nor want for Internet. Don't get hung up on that.

I'm looking at probably 4 of these strategically placed in my network to cover 
any blind spots I might have over my coverage area.

I'm not following, "capping"?

Aside from that, this email came off more than a bit condesending.


- Original Message -
From: Patrick Leary
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

Alvarion did that. I admit, I'm not a fan of capping Glen. It is a gimmick. The 
hardware is what it is, and this hardware is expensive. 30dBm per port. 4 
tx/4rx. Power is expensive. The highest quality DSPs on the market. not 
consumer grade stuff with the sensitivity of your in home Wi-Fi router. We 
build our own phy from the ground up too, our own ATPC algorithms too.

On the software, we do that though -- enabling modularity and scale as you need 
to. I think I need to do a dedicated webinar to this community to walk you guys 
(or those inclined) through it (any takers?). I do not think we can be a 
solution that makes sense where you only have 15 clients. That's the blunt 
truth. Unless you are doing 50 Mbps customers, I am not your micropop (but I 
can do that in some modest scale). That said, I wonder where that 15 number 
comes from? Can you please explain on what architecture that is based? Range? 
Height? Etc. If it is based on a micropop and even then on what just that pop 
can see, I'd say that's likely a model invented out of necessity due to the 
poor performance of the system you are using.

I had a guy on a call today. He zoomed me in on Google Earth to his "NLOS" 
area. Farmland with wind breaks and shade trees for the homes. He is at 400' 
and can't connect squat behind those breaks. In my world, that's LOS all the 
way, even at 150 ft. It is total garbage that so many systems to can't deal 
with that and you've all been fed that that is "normal." It is not. It is just 
gear with terrible specs where the only R&D is at the software level, and even 
that is scant. You do not have NLOS problems. You have equipment problems. 
How such a product ever was allowed to go to market as a "solution" for rural 
broadband is, to me, cynical and reflective of playing a market to skim 
opportunistic dollars from a market segment that sometimes seems to embrace 
abuse. Sort of like the poor 700 MHz owners who got sucked in to buying 20 year 
old Marconi WipLL repackaged as a 700 MHz "solution" because all there was to 
buy. Then vendors do that crap and THEN, THEN tell you there's no backward 
compatibility when they come out with something new?

WISPs. Sometimes you guys drive me nuts. You are like cheerleaders that love to 
date the quarterbacks who abuse you. That is like selling a car that falls 
apart once you leave residential streets. None of you should ever have accepted 
these golf carts to run your fleets. Sometimes, cheap is just cheap.

Boy, I'm gonna hear it from my vendor peers, but this ain't a game or just a 
job for me. I damn sure hope it ain't that for you either.

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image002.png@01D0560D.78462190]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>





From: Af 
[mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com]
 On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:08 PM
To: af

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Patrick Leary]

Well, I'd say most of my friends are WISPs or in this business at this point. 
One day I'll fire up an RV and do a 50 state tour, only staying on the property 
of my WISP friends. I'd love it. I have LOTS of long time friends in this 
space, but they tend to be as blunt as I am.

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image001.png@01D0560C.9516CC80]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:37 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

Patrick's not here to make friends.

He does have a point, though. If a product is revolutionary, you can't look at 
it the same way everything else.


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

[Image removed by sender.]<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[Image removed by 
sender.]<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[Image 
removed by 
sender.]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[Image
 removed by sender.]<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>


From: "Glen Waldrop" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 9:19:22 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
The 15 number comes from rural area. I have some towers that can only hit a few 
homes. Of those few, some still have OTA TV and rotary phones. They have no 
need nor want for Internet. Don't get hung up on that.

I'm looking at probably 4 of these strategically placed in my network to cover 
any blind spots I might have over my coverage area.

I'm not following, "capping"?

Aside from that, this email came off more than a bit condesending.


- Original Message -
From: Patrick Leary<mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

Alvarion did that. I admit, I'm not a fan of capping Glen. It is a gimmick. The 
hardware is what it is, and this hardware is expensive. 30dBm per port. 4 
tx/4rx. Power is expensive. The highest quality DSPs on the market. not 
consumer grade stuff with the sensitivity of your in home Wi-Fi router. We 
build our own phy from the ground up too, our own ATPC algorithms too.

On the software, we do that though -- enabling modularity and scale as you need 
to. I think I need to do a dedicated webinar to this community to walk you guys 
(or those inclined) through it (any takers?). I do not think we can be a 
solution that makes sense where you only have 15 clients. That's the blunt 
truth. Unless you are doing 50 Mbps customers, I am not your micropop (but I 
can do that in some modest scale). That said, I wonder where that 15 number 
comes from? Can you please explain on what architecture that is based? Range? 
Height? Etc. If it is based on a micropop and even then on what just that pop 
can see, I'd say that's likely a model invented out of necessity due to the 
poor performance of the system you are using.

I had a guy on a call today. He zoomed me in on Google Earth to his "NLOS" 
area. Farmland with wind breaks and shade trees for the homes. He is at 400' 
and can't connect squat behind those breaks. In my world, that's LOS all the 
way, even at 150 ft. It is total garbage that so many systems to can't deal 
with that and you've all been fed that that is "normal." It is not. It is just 
gear with terrible specs where the only R&D is at the software level, and even 
that is scant. You do not have NLOS problems. You have equipment problems. 
How such a product ever was allowed to go to market as a "solution" for rural 
broadband is, to me, cynical and reflective of playing a market to skim 
opportunistic dollars from a market segment that sometimes seems to embrace 
abuse. Sort of like the poor 700 MHz owners who got sucked in to buying 20 year 
old Marconi WipLL repackaged as a 700 MHz "solution" because all there was to 
buy. Then vendors do that crap and THEN, THEN tell you there's no backward 
compatibility when they come out with something new?

WISPs. Sometimes you guys drive me nuts. You are like cheerleaders that love to 
date the quarterbacks who abuse you. That is like selling a car that falls 
apart once you leave residential streets. None of you should ever have accepted 
these golf carts to run your fleets. Sometimes, cheap is just cheap.

Boy, I'm gonna hear it from my vendor peers, but this ain't a game or just a 
job for me. I damn sure hope it ain't that for you either.

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image002.png@01D0560C.9516CC80]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:08 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

Sort of off topic, but what would be the smalles

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Patrick Leary]

I suspect you could pull off omnis then. How's the tree density?

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image001.png@01D0560C.3C21D1B0]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:19 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

The 15 number comes from rural area. I have some towers that can only hit a few 
homes. Of those few, some still have OTA TV and rotary phones. They have no 
need nor want for Internet. Don't get hung up on that.

I'm looking at probably 4 of these strategically placed in my network to cover 
any blind spots I might have over my coverage area.

I'm not following, "capping"?

Aside from that, this email came off more than a bit condesending.


- Original Message -
From: Patrick Leary<mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

Alvarion did that. I admit, I'm not a fan of capping Glen. It is a gimmick. The 
hardware is what it is, and this hardware is expensive. 30dBm per port. 4 
tx/4rx. Power is expensive. The highest quality DSPs on the market. not 
consumer grade stuff with the sensitivity of your in home Wi-Fi router. We 
build our own phy from the ground up too, our own ATPC algorithms too.

On the software, we do that though -- enabling modularity and scale as you need 
to. I think I need to do a dedicated webinar to this community to walk you guys 
(or those inclined) through it (any takers?). I do not think we can be a 
solution that makes sense where you only have 15 clients. That's the blunt 
truth. Unless you are doing 50 Mbps customers, I am not your micropop (but I 
can do that in some modest scale). That said, I wonder where that 15 number 
comes from? Can you please explain on what architecture that is based? Range? 
Height? Etc. If it is based on a micropop and even then on what just that pop 
can see, I'd say that's likely a model invented out of necessity due to the 
poor performance of the system you are using.

I had a guy on a call today. He zoomed me in on Google Earth to his "NLOS" 
area. Farmland with wind breaks and shade trees for the homes. He is at 400' 
and can't connect squat behind those breaks. In my world, that's LOS all the 
way, even at 150 ft. It is total garbage that so many systems to can't deal 
with that and you've all been fed that that is "normal." It is not. It is just 
gear with terrible specs where the only R&D is at the software level, and even 
that is scant. You do not have NLOS problems. You have equipment problems. 
How such a product ever was allowed to go to market as a "solution" for rural 
broadband is, to me, cynical and reflective of playing a market to skim 
opportunistic dollars from a market segment that sometimes seems to embrace 
abuse. Sort of like the poor 700 MHz owners who got sucked in to buying 20 year 
old Marconi WipLL repackaged as a 700 MHz "solution" because all there was to 
buy. Then vendors do that crap and THEN, THEN tell you there's no backward 
compatibility when they come out with something new?

WISPs. Sometimes you guys drive me nuts. You are like cheerleaders that love to 
date the quarterbacks who abuse you. That is like selling a car that falls 
apart once you leave residential streets. None of you should ever have accepted 
these golf carts to run your fleets. Sometimes, cheap is just cheap.

Boy, I'm gonna hear it from my vendor peers, but this ain't a game or just a 
job for me. I damn sure hope it ain't that for you either.

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image002.png@01D0560C.3C21D1B0]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:08 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

Sort of off topic, but what would be the smallest AP we could get?

I'm thinking about using this system on a few of my towers to make sure we 
never leave without a new customer, but I serve a very rural area.

I have some towers with 15 clients.

Is an omni + GPS sync or narrow channel out of the question?



- Original Message -
From: Patrick Leary<mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>
To: tel...@wispa.org<mailto:tel...@wispa.org> ; 
af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 4:42 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] New feedback

This is an interesting bit of commentary from one of our new customers. If he 
wishes to identify himself, he will

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image002.png@01D0560C.3C21D1B0]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>





From:
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 2:31 AM
To: Patrick Leary; Nick Dewar
Subject: Interesting Statistic

"Patrick / Nick -

Our Director of Operations, which

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Patrick Leary]

I'll call you tomorrow John.

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image001.png@01D0560C.1758B470]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of John Woodfield
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:14 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback


Maybe. My time is tight. I think we last spoke when you were at Alvarion and we 
had acquired the old Friend.ly network...





John Woodfield, President

Delmarva WiFi Inc.

410-870-WiFi


-Original Message-
From: "Patrick Leary" 
mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 9:08pm
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
Have not heard Delmarva in a while. I grew up in No VA. The run out east toward 
OC was a rite of passage...and my first ticket. Damned tricky MD state 
troopers; they used to run 18 wheelers.

If I do this in a webinar, would that work?

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image002.png@01D0560C.1758B470]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>






From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of John Woodfield
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:56 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

Patrick,

I haven't had time to read through all this emails. Can you summarize what the 
lowest cost get up and running on a tower is so I can consider this further 
along with cost per sub?


Thanks,



John Woodfield, President
Delmarva WiFi Inc.
410-870-WiFi


-Original Message-
From: "Patrick Leary" 
mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 8:41pm
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
Alvarion did that. I admit, I'm not a fan of capping Glen. It is a gimmick. The 
hardware is what it is, and this hardware is expensive. 30dBm per port. 4 
tx/4rx. Power is expensive. The highest quality DSPs on the market. not 
consumer grade stuff with the sensitivity of your in home Wi-Fi router. We 
build our own phy from the ground up too, our own ATPC algorithms too.

On the software, we do that though -- enabling modularity and scale as you need 
to. I think I need to do a dedicated webinar to this community to walk you guys 
(or those inclined) through it (any takers?). I do not think we can be a 
solution that makes sense where you only have 15 clients. That's the blunt 
truth. Unless you are doing 50 Mbps customers, I am not your micropop (but I 
can do that in some modest scale). That said, I wonder where that 15 number 
comes from? Can you please explain on what architecture that is based? Range? 
Height? Etc. If it is based on a micropop and even then on what just that pop 
can see, I'd say that's likely a model invented out of necessity due to the 
poor performance of the system you are using.

I had a guy on a call today. He zoomed me in on Google Earth to his "NLOS" 
area. Farmland with wind breaks and shade trees for the homes. He is at 400' 
and can't connect squat behind those breaks. In my world, that's LOS all the 
way, even at 150 ft. It is total garbage that so many systems to can't deal 
with that and you've all been fed that that is "normal." It is not. It is just 
gear with terrible specs where the only R&D is at the software level, and even 
that is scant. You do not have NLOS problems. You have equipment problems. 
How such a product ever was allowed to go to market as a "solution" for rural 
broadband is, to me, cynical and reflective of playing a market to skim 
opportunistic dollars from a market segment that sometimes seems to embrace 
abuse. Sort of like the poor 700 MHz owners who got sucked in to buying 20 year 
old Marconi WipLL repackaged as a 700 MHz "solution" because all there was to 
buy. Then vendors do that crap and THEN, THEN tell you there's no backward 
compatibility when they come out with something new?

WISPs. Sometimes you guys drive me nuts. You are like cheerleaders that love to 
date the quarterbacks who abuse you. That is like selling a car that falls 
apart once you leave residential streets. None of you should ever have accepted 
these golf carts to run your fleets. Sometimes, cheap is just cheap.

Boy, I'm gonna hear it from my vendor peers, but this ain't a game or just a 
job for me. I damn sure hope it ain't that for you either.

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image002.png@01D0560C.1758B470]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>






From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:08 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

Sort of off topic, but what would be the smallest AP we could get?

I'm thinking about using this system on a few of my towers to make sure we 
never leave without a n

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Jason McKemie]

Ouch.  I haven't ruled out trying it myself either :)

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 10:40 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> The people here don't get out much.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
>
> --
> *From: *"Jason McKemie" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 3, 2015 10:25:50 PM
>
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
>
> "If" being the operative term. Until I personally test it, or I hear from
> other regulars on this list that are using it, it's pie in the sky to me.
> I'm not closed off to the idea, just skeptical for obvious reasons.
>
> On Tuesday, March 3, 2015, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>> Patrick's not here to make friends.
>>
>> He does have a point, though. If a product is revolutionary, you can't
>> look at it the same way everything else.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
>> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
>> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
>>
>> --
>> *From: *"Glen Waldrop" 
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 3, 2015 9:19:22 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
>>
>> The 15 number comes from rural area. I have some towers that can only hit
>> a few homes. Of those few, some still have OTA TV and rotary phones. They
>> have no need nor want for Internet. Don't get hung up on that.
>>
>> I'm looking at probably 4 of these strategically placed in my network to
>> cover any blind spots I might have over my coverage area.
>>
>> I'm not following, "capping"?
>>
>> Aside from that, this email came off more than a bit condesending.
>>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> *From:* Patrick Leary
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 03, 2015 7:41 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
>>
>>  Alvarion did that. I admit, I'm not a fan of capping Glen. It is a
>> gimmick. The hardware is what it is, and this hardware is expensive. 30dBm
>> per port. 4 tx/4rx. Power is expensive. The highest quality DSPs on the
>> market. not consumer grade stuff with the sensitivity of your in home Wi-Fi
>> router. We build our own phy from the ground up too, our own ATPC
>> algorithms too.
>>
>>
>>
>> On the software, we do that though -- enabling modularity and scale as
>> you need to. I think I need to do a dedicated webinar to this community to
>> walk you guys (or those inclined) through it (any takers?). I do not think
>> we can be a solution that makes sense where you only have 15 clients.
>> That's the blunt truth. Unless you are doing 50 Mbps customers, I am not
>> your micropop (but I can do that in some modest scale). That said, I wonder
>> where that 15 number comes from? Can you please explain on what
>> architecture that is based? Range? Height? Etc. If it is based on a
>> micropop and even then on what just that pop can see, I'd say that's likely
>> a model invented out of necessity due to the poor performance of the system
>> you are using.
>>
>>
>>
>> I had a guy on a call today. He zoomed me in on Google Earth to his
>> "NLOS" area. Farmland with wind breaks and shade trees for the homes. He is
>> at 400' and can't connect squat behind those breaks. In my world, that's
>> LOS all the way, even at 150 ft. It is total garbage that so many systems
>> to can't deal with that and you've all been fed that that is "normal." It
>> is not. It is just gear with terrible specs where the only R&D is at the
>> software level, and even that is scant. You do not have NLOS problems.
>> You have equipment problems. How such a product ever was allowed to go to
>> market as a "solution" for rural broadband is, to me, cynical and
>> reflective of playing a market to skim opportunistic dollars from a market
>> segment that sometimes seems to embrace abuse. Sort of like the poor 700
>> MHz owners who got sucked in to buying 20 year old Marconi WipLL re

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Patrick Leary]

They are exceptional, and when you want to preserve your spectrum (allow for 
excellent re-use) they are hard to beat.

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image001.png@01D0560B.A368AE80]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:06 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

I will say the patterns you posted for I think they were 65 degree Alpha 
sectors were very pretty indeed.

From: Patrick Leary<mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:08 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

I've examples of everything from an omni (11 dBi Alpha...pricey, but good) with 
4 degree EDT to 8 33 degree Alphas.

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image002.png@01D0560B.A368AE80]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of That One Guy
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 9:01 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

caveat that with lowest cost to get the full performance. when an omni comes 
out, you will have a lower cost, but you wont have full performance or range. 
skimming the material quickly, tho lowest configuration that gets close to 
factory spec is 3 base stations/sector antennas, is this correct?

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 7:56 PM, John Woodfield 
mailto:john.woodfi...@jwcn.biz>> wrote:

Patrick,



I haven't had time to read through all this emails. Can you summarize what the 
lowest cost get up and running on a tower is so I can consider this further 
along with cost per sub?





Thanks,







John Woodfield, President

Delmarva WiFi Inc.

410-870-WiFi


-Original Message-
From: "Patrick Leary" 
mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 8:41pm
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
Alvarion did that. I admit, I'm not a fan of capping Glen. It is a gimmick. The 
hardware is what it is, and this hardware is expensive. 30dBm per port. 4 
tx/4rx. Power is expensive. The highest quality DSPs on the market. not 
consumer grade stuff with the sensitivity of your in home Wi-Fi router. We 
build our own phy from the ground up too, our own ATPC algorithms too.

On the software, we do that though -- enabling modularity and scale as you need 
to. I think I need to do a dedicated webinar to this community to walk you guys 
(or those inclined) through it (any takers?). I do not think we can be a 
solution that makes sense where you only have 15 clients. That's the blunt 
truth. Unless you are doing 50 Mbps customers, I am not your micropop (but I 
can do that in some modest scale). That said, I wonder where that 15 number 
comes from? Can you please explain on what architecture that is based? Range? 
Height? Etc. If it is based on a micropop and even then on what just that pop 
can see, I'd say that's likely a model invented out of necessity due to the 
poor performance of the system you are using.

I had a guy on a call today. He zoomed me in on Google Earth to his "NLOS" 
area. Farmland with wind breaks and shade trees for the homes. He is at 400' 
and can't connect squat behind those breaks. In my world, that's LOS all the 
way, even at 150 ft. It is total garbage that so many systems to can't deal 
with that and you've all been fed that that is "normal." It is not. It is just 
gear with terrible specs where the only R&D is at the software level, and even 
that is scant. You do not have NLOS problems. You have equipment problems. 
How such a product ever was allowed to go to market as a "solution" for rural 
broadband is, to me, cynical and reflective of playing a market to skim 
opportunistic dollars from a market segment that sometimes seems to embrace 
abuse. Sort of like the poor 700 MHz owners who got sucked in to buying 20 year 
old Marconi WipLL repackaged as a 700 MHz "solution" because all there was to 
buy. Then vendors do that crap and THEN, THEN tell you there's no backward 
compatibility when they come out with something new?

WISPs. Sometimes you guys drive me nuts. You are like cheerleaders that love to 
date the quarterbacks who abuse you. That is like selling a car that falls 
apart once you leave residential streets. None of you should ever have accepted 
these golf carts to run your fleets. Sometimes, cheap is just cheap.

Boy, I'm gonna hear it from my vendor peers, but this ain't a game or just a 
job for me. I damn sure hope it ain't that for you either.

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image002.png@01D0560B.A368AE80]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>






From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] On Behalf 
Of Glen Waldrop
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:08 PM
To: af@afm

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Mike Hammett]

The people here don't get out much. 




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



- Original Message -

From: "Jason McKemie"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 10:25:50 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback 

"If" being the operative term. Until I personally test it, or I hear from other 
regulars on this list that are using it, it's pie in the sky to me. I'm not 
closed off to the idea, just skeptical for obvious reasons. 

On Tuesday, March 3, 2015, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




Patrick's not here to make friends. 

He does have a point, though. If a product is revolutionary, you can't look at 
it the same way everything else. 




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





From: "Glen Waldrop" < gwl...@cngwireless.net > 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 9:19:22 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback 


The 15 number comes from rural area. I have some towers that can only hit a few 
homes. Of those few, some still have OTA TV and rotary phones. They have no 
need nor want for Internet. Don't get hung up on that. 

I'm looking at probably 4 of these strategically placed in my network to cover 
any blind spots I might have over my coverage area. 

I'm not following, "capping"? 

Aside from that, this email came off more than a bit condesending. 




- Original Message ----- 
From: Patrick Leary 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 7:41 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback 



Alvarion did that. I admit, I'm not a fan of capping Glen. It is a gimmick. The 
hardware is what it is, and this hardware is expensive. 30dBm per port. 4 
tx/4rx. Power is expensive. The highest quality DSPs on the market. not 
consumer grade stuff with the sensitivity of your in home Wi-Fi router. We 
build our own phy from the ground up too, our own ATPC algorithms too. 

On the software, we do that though -- enabling modularity and scale as you need 
to. I think I need to do a dedicated webinar to this community to walk you guys 
(or those inclined) through it (any takers?). I do not think we can be a 
solution that makes sense where you only have 15 clients. That's the blunt 
truth. Unless you are doing 50 Mbps customers, I am not your micropop (but I 
can do that in some modest scale). That said, I wonder where that 15 number 
comes from? Can you please explain on what architecture that is based? Range? 
Height? Etc. If it is based on a micropop and even then on what just that pop 
can see, I'd say that's likely a model invented out of necessity due to the 
poor performance of the system you are using. 

I had a guy on a call today. He zoomed me in on Google Earth to his "NLOS" 
area. Farmland with wind breaks and shade trees for the homes. He is at 400' 
and can't connect squat behind those breaks. In my world, that's LOS all the 
way, even at 150 ft. It is total garbage that so many systems to can't deal 
with that and you've all been fed that that is "normal." It is not. It is just 
gear with terrible specs where the only R&D is at the software level, and even 
that is scant. You do not have NLOS problems. You have equipment problems. 
How such a product ever was allowed to go to market as a "solution" for rural 
broadband is, to me, cynical and reflective of playing a market to skim 
opportunistic dollars from a market segment that sometimes seems to embrace 
abuse. Sort of like the poor 700 MHz owners who got sucked in to buying 20 year 
old Marconi WipLL repackaged as a 700 MHz "solution" because all there was to 
buy. Then vendors do that crap and THEN, THEN tell you there's no backward 
compatibility when they come out with something new? 

WISPs. Sometimes you guys drive me nuts. You are like cheerleaders that love to 
date the quarterbacks who abuse you. That is like selling a car that falls 
apart once you leave residential streets. None of you should ever have accepted 
these golf carts to run your fleets. Sometimes, cheap is just cheap. 

Boy, I'm gonna hear it from my vendor peers, but this ain't a game or just a 
job for me. I damn sure hope it ain't that for you either. 


    
Patrick Leary 
M 727.501.3735 







From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop 
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:08 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback 


Sort of off topic, but what would be the smallest AP we could get? 

I'm thinking about using this system on a few of my towers to make sure we 
never leave without a new customer, but I serve a very rural area. 

I have some towers with 15 clients. 

Is an omni + GPS sync or narrow channel out of the question? 









- Original Message - 

From: Patrick L

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Jason McKemie]

"If" being the operative term. Until I personally test it, or I hear from
other regulars on this list that are using it, it's pie in the sky to me.
I'm not closed off to the idea, just skeptical for obvious reasons.

On Tuesday, March 3, 2015, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> Patrick's not here to make friends.
>
> He does have a point, though. If a product is revolutionary, you can't
> look at it the same way everything else.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
>
> --
> *From: *"Glen Waldrop"  >
> *To: *af@afmug.com 
> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 3, 2015 9:19:22 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
>
> The 15 number comes from rural area. I have some towers that can only hit
> a few homes. Of those few, some still have OTA TV and rotary phones. They
> have no need nor want for Internet. Don't get hung up on that.
>
> I'm looking at probably 4 of these strategically placed in my network to
> cover any blind spots I might have over my coverage area.
>
> I'm not following, "capping"?
>
> Aside from that, this email came off more than a bit condesending.
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Patrick Leary
> 
> *To:* af@afmug.com 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 03, 2015 7:41 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
>
>  Alvarion did that. I admit, I'm not a fan of capping Glen. It is a
> gimmick. The hardware is what it is, and this hardware is expensive. 30dBm
> per port. 4 tx/4rx. Power is expensive. The highest quality DSPs on the
> market. not consumer grade stuff with the sensitivity of your in home Wi-Fi
> router. We build our own phy from the ground up too, our own ATPC
> algorithms too.
>
>
>
> On the software, we do that though -- enabling modularity and scale as you
> need to. I think I need to do a dedicated webinar to this community to walk
> you guys (or those inclined) through it (any takers?). I do not think we
> can be a solution that makes sense where you only have 15 clients. That's
> the blunt truth. Unless you are doing 50 Mbps customers, I am not your
> micropop (but I can do that in some modest scale). That said, I wonder
> where that 15 number comes from? Can you please explain on what
> architecture that is based? Range? Height? Etc. If it is based on a
> micropop and even then on what just that pop can see, I'd say that's likely
> a model invented out of necessity due to the poor performance of the system
> you are using.
>
>
>
> I had a guy on a call today. He zoomed me in on Google Earth to his "NLOS"
> area. Farmland with wind breaks and shade trees for the homes. He is at
> 400' and can't connect squat behind those breaks. In my world, that's LOS
> all the way, even at 150 ft. It is total garbage that so many systems to
> can't deal with that and you've all been fed that that is "normal." It is
> not. It is just gear with terrible specs where the only R&D is at the
> software level, and even that is scant. You do not have NLOS problems.
> You have equipment problems. How such a product ever was allowed to go to
> market as a "solution" for rural broadband is, to me, cynical and
> reflective of playing a market to skim opportunistic dollars from a market
> segment that sometimes seems to embrace abuse. Sort of like the poor 700
> MHz owners who got sucked in to buying 20 year old Marconi WipLL repackaged
> as a 700 MHz "solution" because all there was to buy. Then vendors do that
> crap and THEN, THEN tell you there's no backward compatibility when they
> come out with something new?
>
>
>
> WISPs. Sometimes you guys drive me nuts. You are like cheerleaders that
> love to date the quarterbacks who abuse you. That is like selling a car
> that falls apart once you leave residential streets. None of you should
> ever have accepted these golf carts to run your fleets. Sometimes, cheap is
> just cheap.
>
>
>
> Boy, I'm gonna hear it from my vendor peers, but this ain't a game or just
> a job for me. I damn sure hope it ain't that for you either.
>
>
>
> *Patrick Leary*
>
> *M* 727.501.3735
>
> <http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
> ] *On Behalf Of *Glen
> Waldrop
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:08 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com 
> *Subject:

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Mike Hammett]

Patrick's not here to make friends. 

He does have a point, though. If a product is revolutionary, you can't look at 
it the same way everything else. 




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



- Original Message -

From: "Glen Waldrop"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 9:19:22 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback 


The 15 number comes from rural area. I have some towers that can only hit a few 
homes. Of those few, some still have OTA TV and rotary phones. They have no 
need nor want for Internet. Don't get hung up on that. 

I'm looking at probably 4 of these strategically placed in my network to cover 
any blind spots I might have over my coverage area. 

I'm not following, "capping"? 

Aside from that, this email came off more than a bit condesending. 




- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 7:41 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback 



Alvarion did that. I admit, I'm not a fan of capping Glen. It is a gimmick. The 
hardware is what it is, and this hardware is expensive. 30dBm per port. 4 
tx/4rx. Power is expensive. The highest quality DSPs on the market. not 
consumer grade stuff with the sensitivity of your in home Wi-Fi router. We 
build our own phy from the ground up too, our own ATPC algorithms too. 

On the software, we do that though -- enabling modularity and scale as you need 
to. I think I need to do a dedicated webinar to this community to walk you guys 
(or those inclined) through it (any takers?). I do not think we can be a 
solution that makes sense where you only have 15 clients. That's the blunt 
truth. Unless you are doing 50 Mbps customers, I am not your micropop (but I 
can do that in some modest scale). That said, I wonder where that 15 number 
comes from? Can you please explain on what architecture that is based? Range? 
Height? Etc. If it is based on a micropop and even then on what just that pop 
can see, I'd say that's likely a model invented out of necessity due to the 
poor performance of the system you are using. 

I had a guy on a call today. He zoomed me in on Google Earth to his "NLOS" 
area. Farmland with wind breaks and shade trees for the homes. He is at 400' 
and can't connect squat behind those breaks. In my world, that's LOS all the 
way, even at 150 ft. It is total garbage that so many systems to can't deal 
with that and you've all been fed that that is "normal." It is not. It is just 
gear with terrible specs where the only R&D is at the software level, and even 
that is scant. You do not have NLOS problems. You have equipment problems. 
How such a product ever was allowed to go to market as a "solution" for rural 
broadband is, to me, cynical and reflective of playing a market to skim 
opportunistic dollars from a market segment that sometimes seems to embrace 
abuse. Sort of like the poor 700 MHz owners who got sucked in to buying 20 year 
old Marconi WipLL repackaged as a 700 MHz "solution" because all there was to 
buy. Then vendors do that crap and THEN, THEN tell you there's no backward 
compatibility when they come out with something new? 

WISPs. Sometimes you guys drive me nuts. You are like cheerleaders that love to 
date the quarterbacks who abuse you. That is like selling a car that falls 
apart once you leave residential streets. None of you should ever have accepted 
these golf carts to run your fleets. Sometimes, cheap is just cheap. 

Boy, I'm gonna hear it from my vendor peers, but this ain't a game or just a 
job for me. I damn sure hope it ain't that for you either. 



Patrick Leary 
M 727.501.3735 

        
        




From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop 
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:08 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback 


Sort of off topic, but what would be the smallest AP we could get? 

I'm thinking about using this system on a few of my towers to make sure we 
never leave without a new customer, but I serve a very rural area. 

I have some towers with 15 clients. 

Is an omni + GPS sync or narrow channel out of the question? 









- Original Message - 

From: Patrick Leary 

To: tel...@wispa.org ; af@afmug.com 

Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 4:42 PM 

Subject: [AFMUG] New feedback 


This is an interesting bit of commentary from one of our new customers. If he 
wishes to identify himself, he will 



Patrick Leary 
M 727.501.3735 







From: 
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 2:31 AM 
To: Patrick Leary; Nick Dewar 
Subject: Interesting Statistic 

" Patrick / Nick – 

Our Director of Operations, which you both met in St Louis, sent out an 
interesting email to our staff this evening. In February with only 20 working 
days we completed 40 insta

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[That One Guy]

yeah, and we only have a little bit of corn too

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 8:47 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> I don't have all of the answers, but I sure let a vendor know when they're
> wrong.  ;-)
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
>
> --
> *From: *"Patrick Leary" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 3, 2015 7:41:57 PM
>
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
>
>  Alvarion did that. I admit, I'm not a fan of capping Glen. It is a
> gimmick. The hardware is what it is, and this hardware is expensive. 30dBm
> per port. 4 tx/4rx. Power is expensive. The highest quality DSPs on the
> market. not consumer grade stuff with the sensitivity of your in home Wi-Fi
> router. We build our own phy from the ground up too, our own ATPC
> algorithms too.
>
>
>
> On the software, we do that though -- enabling modularity and scale as you
> need to. I think I need to do a dedicated webinar to this community to walk
> you guys (or those inclined) through it (any takers?). I do not think we
> can be a solution that makes sense where you only have 15 clients. That's
> the blunt truth. Unless you are doing 50 Mbps customers, I am not your
> micropop (but I can do that in some modest scale). That said, I wonder
> where that 15 number comes from? Can you please explain on what
> architecture that is based? Range? Height? Etc. If it is based on a
> micropop and even then on what just that pop can see, I'd say that's likely
> a model invented out of necessity due to the poor performance of the system
> you are using.
>
>
>
> I had a guy on a call today. He zoomed me in on Google Earth to his "NLOS"
> area. Farmland with wind breaks and shade trees for the homes. He is at
> 400' and can't connect squat behind those breaks. In my world, that's LOS
> all the way, even at 150 ft. It is total garbage that so many systems to
> can't deal with that and you've all been fed that that is "normal." It is
> not. It is just gear with terrible specs where the only R&D is at the
> software level, and even that is scant. You do not have NLOS problems.
> You have equipment problems. How such a product ever was allowed to go to
> market as a "solution" for rural broadband is, to me, cynical and
> reflective of playing a market to skim opportunistic dollars from a market
> segment that sometimes seems to embrace abuse. Sort of like the poor 700
> MHz owners who got sucked in to buying 20 year old Marconi WipLL repackaged
> as a 700 MHz "solution" because all there was to buy. Then vendors do that
> crap and THEN, THEN tell you there's no backward compatibility when they
> come out with something new?
>
>
>
> WISPs. Sometimes you guys drive me nuts. You are like cheerleaders that
> love to date the quarterbacks who abuse you. That is like selling a car
> that falls apart once you leave residential streets. None of you should
> ever have accepted these golf carts to run your fleets. Sometimes, cheap is
> just cheap.
>
>
>
> Boy, I'm gonna hear it from my vendor peers, but this ain't a game or just
> a job for me. I damn sure hope it ain't that for you either.
>
>
>
> *Patrick Leary*
>
> *M* 727.501.3735
>
> <http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Glen Waldrop
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:08 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
>
>
>
> Sort of off topic, but what would be the smallest AP we could get?
>
> I'm thinking about using this system on a few of my towers to make sure we
> never leave without a new customer, but I serve a very rural area.
>
> I have some towers with 15 clients.
>
> Is an omni + GPS sync or narrow channel out of the question?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  - Original Message -
>
> *From:* Patrick Leary 
>
> *To:* tel...@wispa.org ; af@afmug.com
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 03, 2015 4:42 PM
>
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] New feedback
>
>
>
> This is an interesting bit of commentary from one of our new customers. If
> he wishes to identify himself, he will
>
>
>
> *Patrick Leary*
>
> *M* 727.501.3735
>
> <http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:*
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 03, 2015 2:31 AM
> *

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Glen Waldrop]

The 15 number comes from rural area. I have some towers that can only hit a few 
homes. Of those few, some still have OTA TV and rotary phones. They have no 
need nor want for Internet. Don't get hung up on that.

I'm looking at probably 4 of these strategically placed in my network to cover 
any blind spots I might have over my coverage area.

I'm not following, "capping"?

Aside from that, this email came off more than a bit condesending.


  - Original Message - 
  From: Patrick Leary 
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 7:41 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback


  Alvarion did that. I admit, I'm not a fan of capping Glen. It is a gimmick. 
The hardware is what it is, and this hardware is expensive. 30dBm per port. 4 
tx/4rx. Power is expensive. The highest quality DSPs on the market. not 
consumer grade stuff with the sensitivity of your in home Wi-Fi router. We 
build our own phy from the ground up too, our own ATPC algorithms too. 

   

  On the software, we do that though -- enabling modularity and scale as you 
need to. I think I need to do a dedicated webinar to this community to walk you 
guys (or those inclined) through it (any takers?). I do not think we can be a 
solution that makes sense where you only have 15 clients. That's the blunt 
truth. Unless you are doing 50 Mbps customers, I am not your micropop (but I 
can do that in some modest scale). That said, I wonder where that 15 number 
comes from? Can you please explain on what architecture that is based? Range? 
Height? Etc. If it is based on a micropop and even then on what just that pop 
can see, I'd say that's likely a model invented out of necessity due to the 
poor performance of the system you are using.

   

  I had a guy on a call today. He zoomed me in on Google Earth to his "NLOS" 
area. Farmland with wind breaks and shade trees for the homes. He is at 400' 
and can't connect squat behind those breaks. In my world, that's LOS all the 
way, even at 150 ft. It is total garbage that so many systems to can't deal 
with that and you've all been fed that that is "normal." It is not. It is just 
gear with terrible specs where the only R&D is at the software level, and even 
that is scant. You do not have NLOS problems. You have equipment problems. 
How such a product ever was allowed to go to market as a "solution" for rural 
broadband is, to me, cynical and reflective of playing a market to skim 
opportunistic dollars from a market segment that sometimes seems to embrace 
abuse. Sort of like the poor 700 MHz owners who got sucked in to buying 20 year 
old Marconi WipLL repackaged as a 700 MHz "solution" because all there was to 
buy. Then vendors do that crap and THEN, THEN tell you there's no backward 
compatibility when they come out with something new? 

   

  WISPs. Sometimes you guys drive me nuts. You are like cheerleaders that love 
to date the quarterbacks who abuse you. That is like selling a car that falls 
apart once you leave residential streets. None of you should ever have accepted 
these golf carts to run your fleets. Sometimes, cheap is just cheap.

   

  Boy, I'm gonna hear it from my vendor peers, but this ain't a game or just a 
job for me. I damn sure hope it ain't that for you either.

   

Patrick Leary

M 727.501.3735 


   
 
   

   

   

  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
  Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:08 PM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

   

  Sort of off topic, but what would be the smallest AP we could get?

  I'm thinking about using this system on a few of my towers to make sure we 
never leave without a new customer, but I serve a very rural area.

  I have some towers with 15 clients.

  Is an omni + GPS sync or narrow channel out of the question?

   

   

   

- Original Message - 

From: Patrick Leary 

To: tel...@wispa.org ; af@afmug.com 

Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 4:42 PM

Subject: [AFMUG] New feedback

 

This is an interesting bit of commentary from one of our new customers. If 
he wishes to identify himself, he will

 

  Patrick Leary

  M 727.501.3735 


 
   
 

 

 

From: 

Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 2:31 AM
To: Patrick Leary; Nick Dewar
Subject: Interesting Statistic

 

"Patrick / Nick -

 

Our Director of Operations, which you both met in St Louis, sent out an 
interesting email to our staff this evening. In February with only 20 working 
days we completed 40 installs with one technician... This is only icing on the 
cake, especially since we are onboarding two more techs... I ran some 
additional numbers and found that out of the "Telrad" installations that we 
s

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[John Woodfield]

Maybe. My time is tight. I think we last spoke when you were at Alvarion and we had acquired the old Friend.ly network...
 
 

John Woodfield, President
Delmarva WiFi Inc.
410-870-WiFi

-Original Message-From: "Patrick Leary" Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 9:08pmTo: "af@afmug.com" Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback



Have not heard Delmarva in a while. I grew up in No VA. The run out east toward OC was a rite of passage...and my first ticket. Damned tricky MD state troopers; they used to run 18 wheelers.
 
If I do this in a webinar, would that work?
 




Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735








 







 
 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of John WoodfieldSent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:56 PMTo: af@afmug.comSubject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

 
Patrick,
 
I haven't had time to read through all this emails. Can you summarize what the lowest cost get up and running on a tower is so I can consider this further along with cost per sub?
 
 
Thanks,
 
 
 
John Woodfield, President
Delmarva WiFi Inc.
410-870-WiFi
 -Original Message- From: "Patrick Leary" <patrick.le...@telrad.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 8:41pm To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

Alvarion did that. I admit, I'm not a fan of capping Glen. It is a gimmick. The hardware is what it is, and this hardware is expensive. 30dBm per port. 4 tx/4rx. Power is expensive. The highest quality DSPs on the market. not consumer grade stuff with the sensitivity of your in home Wi-Fi router. We build our own phy from the ground up too, our own ATPC algorithms too. 
 
On the software, we do that though -- enabling modularity and scale as you need to. I think I need to do a dedicated webinar to this community to walk you guys (or those inclined) through it (any takers?). I do not think we can be a solution that makes sense where you only have 15 clients. That's the blunt truth. Unless you are doing 50 Mbps customers, I am not your micropop (but I can do that in some modest scale). That said, I wonder where that 15 number comes from? Can you please explain on what architecture that is based? Range? Height? Etc. If it is based on a micropop and even then on what just that pop can see, I'd say that's likely a model invented out of necessity due to the poor performance of the system you are using.
 
I had a guy on a call today. He zoomed me in on Google Earth to his "NLOS" area. Farmland with wind breaks and shade trees for the homes. He is at 400' and can't connect squat behind those breaks. In my world, that's LOS all the way, even at 150 ft. It is total garbage that so many systems to can't deal with that and you've all been fed that that is "normal." It is not. It is just gear with terrible specs where the only R&D is at the software level, and even that is scant. You do not have NLOS problems. You have equipment problems. How such a product ever was allowed to go to market as a "solution" for rural broadband is, to me, cynical and reflective of playing a market to skim opportunistic dollars from a market segment that sometimes seems to embrace abuse. Sort of like the poor 700 MHz owners who got sucked in to buying 20 year old Marconi WipLL repackaged as a 700 MHz "solution" because all there was to buy. Then vendors do that crap and THEN, THEN tell you there's no backward compatibility when they come out with something new? 
 
WISPs. Sometimes you guys drive me nuts. You are like cheerleaders that love to date the quarterbacks who abuse you. That is like selling a car that falls apart once you leave residential streets. None of you should ever have accepted these golf carts to run your fleets. Sometimes, cheap is just cheap.
 
Boy, I'm gonna hear it from my vendor peers, but this ain't a game or just a job for me. I damn sure hope it ain't that for you either.
 





Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735









 








 
 


From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen WaldropSent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:08 PMTo:  af@afmug.comSubject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback


 

Sort of off topic, but what would be the smallest AP we could get? I'm thinking about using this system on a few of my towers to make sure we never leave without a new customer, but I serve a very rural area. I have some towers with 15 clients. Is an omni + GPS sync or narrow channel out of the question?


 


 


 



- Original Message - 


From: Patrick Leary 


To: tel...@wispa.org ; af@afmug.com 


Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 4:42 PM


Subject: [AFMUG] New feedback


 

This is an interesting bit of commentary from one of our new customers. If he wishes to identify himself, he will
 





Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735









 








 
 


From:
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 2:31 AMTo: Patrick Leary; Nick DewarSubject: Interesting Stat

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Ken Hohhof]

I will say the patterns you posted for I think they were 65 degree Alpha 
sectors were very pretty indeed.

From: Patrick Leary 
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:08 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

I've examples of everything from an omni (11 dBi Alpha...pricey, but good) with 
4 degree EDT to 8 33 degree Alphas. 

 

  Patrick Leary

  M 727.501.3735 


 
   
 

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of That One Guy
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 9:01 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

 

caveat that with lowest cost to get the full performance. when an omni comes 
out, you will have a lower cost, but you wont have full performance or range. 
skimming the material quickly, tho lowest configuration that gets close to 
factory spec is 3 base stations/sector antennas, is this correct?

 

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 7:56 PM, John Woodfield  wrote:

Patrick,

 

I haven't had time to read through all this emails. Can you summarize what the 
lowest cost get up and running on a tower is so I can consider this further 
along with cost per sub?

 

 

Thanks,

 

 

 

John Woodfield, President

Delmarva WiFi Inc.

410-870-WiFi



-Original Message-
From: "Patrick Leary" 
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 8:41pm
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

Alvarion did that. I admit, I'm not a fan of capping Glen. It is a gimmick. The 
hardware is what it is, and this hardware is expensive. 30dBm per port. 4 
tx/4rx. Power is expensive. The highest quality DSPs on the market. not 
consumer grade stuff with the sensitivity of your in home Wi-Fi router. We 
build our own phy from the ground up too, our own ATPC algorithms too. 

 

On the software, we do that though -- enabling modularity and scale as you need 
to. I think I need to do a dedicated webinar to this community to walk you guys 
(or those inclined) through it (any takers?). I do not think we can be a 
solution that makes sense where you only have 15 clients. That's the blunt 
truth. Unless you are doing 50 Mbps customers, I am not your micropop (but I 
can do that in some modest scale). That said, I wonder where that 15 number 
comes from? Can you please explain on what architecture that is based? Range? 
Height? Etc. If it is based on a micropop and even then on what just that pop 
can see, I'd say that's likely a model invented out of necessity due to the 
poor performance of the system you are using.

 

I had a guy on a call today. He zoomed me in on Google Earth to his "NLOS" 
area. Farmland with wind breaks and shade trees for the homes. He is at 400' 
and can't connect squat behind those breaks. In my world, that's LOS all the 
way, even at 150 ft. It is total garbage that so many systems to can't deal 
with that and you've all been fed that that is "normal." It is not. It is just 
gear with terrible specs where the only R&D is at the software level, and even 
that is scant. You do not have NLOS problems. You have equipment problems. 
How such a product ever was allowed to go to market as a "solution" for rural 
broadband is, to me, cynical and reflective of playing a market to skim 
opportunistic dollars from a market segment that sometimes seems to embrace 
abuse. Sort of like the poor 700 MHz owners who got sucked in to buying 20 year 
old Marconi WipLL repackaged as a 700 MHz "solution" because all there was to 
buy. Then vendors do that crap and THEN, THEN tell you there's no backward 
compatibility when they come out with something new? 

 

WISPs. Sometimes you guys drive me nuts. You are like cheerleaders that love to 
date the quarterbacks who abuse you. That is like selling a car that falls 
apart once you leave residential streets. None of you should ever have accepted 
these golf carts to run your fleets. Sometimes, cheap is just cheap.

 

Boy, I'm gonna hear it from my vendor peers, but this ain't a game or just a 
job for me. I damn sure hope it ain't that for you either.

 

  Patrick Leary

  M 727.501.3735


 
 
   
     

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:08 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

 

Sort of off topic, but what would be the smallest AP we could get?

I'm thinking about using this system on a few of my towers to make sure we 
never leave without a new customer, but I serve a very rural area.

I have some towers with 15 clients.

Is an omni + GPS sync or narrow channel out of the question?

 

 

 

  - Original Message - 

  From: Patrick Leary 

  To: tel...@wispa.org ; af@afmug.com 

  Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 4:42 PM

  Subject: [AFMUG] New feedback

   

  This is an interesting bit of commentary from one of our new customers. If he 
wishes to ide

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Mike Hammett]

There are no areas in Illinois that are that sparse. 




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



- Original Message -

From: "That One Guy"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 7:56:20 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback 


sometimes, in a rural area there are only 15 people who want internet in an 
area beyond dialup. I dont know what it is they are still even able to do on 
dialup, but there is still alot of it around here, i dont even know where they 
get modems these days, but the rural rural market, not rural to and urban area, 
just sometimes doesnt have a population that wants anything 


On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 7:41 PM, Patrick Leary < patrick.le...@telrad.com > 
wrote: 





Alvarion did that. I admit, I'm not a fan of capping Glen. It is a gimmick. The 
hardware is what it is, and this hardware is expensive. 30dBm per port. 4 
tx/4rx. Power is expensive. The highest quality DSPs on the market. not 
consumer grade stuff with the sensitivity of your in home Wi-Fi router. We 
build our own phy from the ground up too, our own ATPC algorithms too. 

On the software, we do that though -- enabling modularity and scale as you need 
to. I think I need to do a dedicated webinar to this community to walk you guys 
(or those inclined) through it (any takers?). I do not think we can be a 
solution that makes sense where you only have 15 clients. That's the blunt 
truth. Unless you are doing 50 Mbps customers, I am not your micropop (but I 
can do that in some modest scale). That said, I wonder where that 15 number 
comes from? Can you please explain on what architecture that is based? Range? 
Height? Etc. If it is based on a micropop and even then on what just that pop 
can see, I'd say that's likely a model invented out of necessity due to the 
poor performance of the system you are using. 

I had a guy on a call today. He zoomed me in on Google Earth to his "NLOS" 
area. Farmland with wind breaks and shade trees for the homes. He is at 400' 
and can't connect squat behind those breaks. In my world, that's LOS all the 
way, even at 150 ft. It is total garbage that so many systems to can't deal 
with that and you've all been fed that that is "normal." It is not. It is just 
gear with terrible specs where the only R&D is at the software level, and even 
that is scant. You do not have NLOS problems. You have equipment problems. 
How such a product ever was allowed to go to market as a "solution" for rural 
broadband is, to me, cynical and reflective of playing a market to skim 
opportunistic dollars from a market segment that sometimes seems to embrace 
abuse. Sort of like the poor 700 MHz owners who got sucked in to buying 20 year 
old Marconi WipLL repackaged as a 700 MHz "solution" because all there was to 
buy. Then vendors do that crap and THEN, THEN tell you there's no backward 
compatibility when they come out with something new? 

WISPs. Sometimes you guys drive me nuts. You are like cheerleaders that love to 
date the quarterbacks who abuse you. That is like selling a car that falls 
apart once you leave residential streets. None of you should ever have accepted 
these golf carts to run your fleets. Sometimes, cheap is just cheap. 

Boy, I'm gonna hear it from my vendor peers, but this ain't a game or just a 
job for me. I damn sure hope it ain't that for you either. 



Patrick Leary 
M 727.501.3735 







From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop 
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:08 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback 




Sort of off topic, but what would be the smallest AP we could get? 

I'm thinking about using this system on a few of my towers to make sure we 
never leave without a new customer, but I serve a very rural area. 

I have some towers with 15 clients. 

Is an omni + GPS sync or narrow channel out of the question? 









- Original Message - 

From: Patrick Leary 

To: tel...@wispa.org ; af@afmug.com 

Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 4:42 PM 

Subject: [AFMUG] New feedback 


This is an interesting bit of commentary from one of our new customers. If he 
wishes to identify himself, he will 



Patrick Leary 
M 727.501.3735 







From: 
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 2:31 AM 
To: Patrick Leary; Nick Dewar 
Subject: Interesting Statistic 

" Patrick / Nick – 

Our Director of Operations, which you both met in St Louis, sent out an 
interesting email to our staff this evening. In February with only 20 working 
days we completed 40 installs with one technician ... This is only icing on the 
cake, especially since we are onboarding two more techs. .. I ran some 
additional numbers and found that out of the “Telrad” installations that we 
scheduled, 100 % were successful both of these 

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Mike Hammett]

I don't have all of the answers, but I sure let a vendor know when they're 
wrong. ;-) 




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



- Original Message -

From: "Patrick Leary"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 7:41:57 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback 



Alvarion did that. I admit, I'm not a fan of capping Glen. It is a gimmick. The 
hardware is what it is, and this hardware is expensive. 30dBm per port. 4 
tx/4rx. Power is expensive. The highest quality DSPs on the market. not 
consumer grade stuff with the sensitivity of your in home Wi-Fi router. We 
build our own phy from the ground up too, our own ATPC algorithms too. 

On the software, we do that though -- enabling modularity and scale as you need 
to. I think I need to do a dedicated webinar to this community to walk you guys 
(or those inclined) through it (any takers?). I do not think we can be a 
solution that makes sense where you only have 15 clients. That's the blunt 
truth. Unless you are doing 50 Mbps customers, I am not your micropop (but I 
can do that in some modest scale). That said, I wonder where that 15 number 
comes from? Can you please explain on what architecture that is based? Range? 
Height? Etc. If it is based on a micropop and even then on what just that pop 
can see, I'd say that's likely a model invented out of necessity due to the 
poor performance of the system you are using. 

I had a guy on a call today. He zoomed me in on Google Earth to his "NLOS" 
area. Farmland with wind breaks and shade trees for the homes. He is at 400' 
and can't connect squat behind those breaks. In my world, that's LOS all the 
way, even at 150 ft. It is total garbage that so many systems to can't deal 
with that and you've all been fed that that is "normal." It is not. It is just 
gear with terrible specs where the only R&D is at the software level, and even 
that is scant. You do not have NLOS problems. You have equipment problems. 
How such a product ever was allowed to go to market as a "solution" for rural 
broadband is, to me, cynical and reflective of playing a market to skim 
opportunistic dollars from a market segment that sometimes seems to embrace 
abuse. Sort of like the poor 700 MHz owners who got sucked in to buying 20 year 
old Marconi WipLL repackaged as a 700 MHz "solution" because all there was to 
buy. Then vendors do that crap and THEN, THEN tell you there's no backward 
compatibility when they come out with something new? 

WISPs. Sometimes you guys drive me nuts. You are like cheerleaders that love to 
date the quarterbacks who abuse you. That is like selling a car that falls 
apart once you leave residential streets. None of you should ever have accepted 
these golf carts to run your fleets. Sometimes, cheap is just cheap. 

Boy, I'm gonna hear it from my vendor peers, but this ain't a game or just a 
job for me. I damn sure hope it ain't that for you either. 



Patrick Leary 
M 727.501.3735 







From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop 
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:08 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback 


Sort of off topic, but what would be the smallest AP we could get? 

I'm thinking about using this system on a few of my towers to make sure we 
never leave without a new customer, but I serve a very rural area. 

I have some towers with 15 clients. 

Is an omni + GPS sync or narrow channel out of the question? 









- Original Message - 

From: Patrick Leary 

To: tel...@wispa.org ; af@afmug.com 

Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 4:42 PM 

Subject: [AFMUG] New feedback 


This is an interesting bit of commentary from one of our new customers. If he 
wishes to identify himself, he will 



Patrick Leary 
M 727.501.3735 







From: 
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 2:31 AM 
To: Patrick Leary; Nick Dewar 
Subject: Interesting Statistic 

" Patrick / Nick – 

Our Director of Operations, which you both met in St Louis, sent out an 
interesting email to our staff this evening. In February with only 20 working 
days we completed 40 installs with one technician ... This is only icing on the 
cake, especially since we are onboarding two more techs. .. I ran some 
additional numbers and found that out of the “Telrad” installations that we 
scheduled, 100 % were successful both of these months. This is a game changer, 
and it proves that we can eliminate the need to waste further time with the 
dreaded site surveys. Our success is not without the help of Telrad’s Compact 
solution. Truly amazing and inspiring, excited for our aggressive expansion 
this spring/summer/fall. I cannot wait to have hundreds of these damn things in 

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Bill Prince]

It's the last mile problem in a nutshell.  Where we are, we have 40 acre 
minimum lost size, with lots of open space between "lots". We're lucky 
in some areas to have one sub per square mile.  We run POPs with as few 
as 12 subs.


bp


On 3/3/2015 6:21 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
Population density is very low in some rural areas.  New construction 
has been pretty much nada, with the housing bust and wind farms, no 
new subdivisions, no farmettes.  The only houses are where farmhouses 
or 1 room schoolhouses used to stand.
Then factor in you just can’t achieve 100% market share. No matter how 
good your service and price, some of the available subscribers will 
instead go with WISP competitors, DSL, satellite, mobile hotspot, or 
“I don’t need one of those newfangled computer thingies”.

So sometimes you’re doing good to get 15 subs.
Of course if you can double your range, you may quadruple the 
available market.
Someone on the list posted a few days back about not going through 
granite.  I assume even LTE can’t do that however.

*From:* Patrick Leary <mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>
*Sent:* Tuesday, March 03, 2015 7:41 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

Alvarion did that. I admit, I'm not a fan of capping Glen. It is a 
gimmick. The hardware is what it is, and this hardware is expensive. 
30dBm per port. 4 tx/4rx. Power is expensive. The highest quality DSPs 
on the market. not consumer grade stuff with the sensitivity of your 
in home Wi-Fi router. We build our own phy from the ground up too, our 
own ATPC algorithms too.


On the software, we do that though -- enabling modularity and scale as 
you need to. I think I need to do a dedicated webinar to this 
community to walk you guys (or those inclined) through it (any 
takers?). I do not think we can be a solution that makes sense where 
you only have 15 clients. That's the blunt truth. Unless you are doing 
50 Mbps customers, I am not your micropop (but I can do that in some 
modest scale). That said, I wonder where that 15 number comes from? 
Can you please explain on what architecture that is based? Range? 
Height? Etc. If it is based on a micropop and even then on what just 
that pop can see, I'd say that's likely a model invented out of 
necessity due to the poor performance of the system you are using.


I had a guy on a call today. He zoomed me in on Google Earth to his 
"NLOS" area. Farmland with wind breaks and shade trees for the homes. 
He is at 400' and can't connect squat behind those breaks. In my 
world, that's LOS all the way, even at 150 ft. It is total garbage 
that so many systems to can't deal with that and you've all been fed 
that that is "normal." It is not. It is just gear with terrible specs 
where the only R&D is at the software level, and even that is scant. 
You do not have NLOS problems. You have equipment problems. How 
such a product ever was allowed to go to market as a "solution" for 
rural broadband is, to me, cynical and reflective of playing a market 
to skim opportunistic dollars from a market segment that sometimes 
seems to embrace abuse. Sort of like the poor 700 MHz owners who got 
sucked in to buying 20 year old Marconi WipLL repackaged as a 700 MHz 
"solution" because all there was to buy. Then vendors do that crap and 
THEN, THEN tell you there's no backward compatibility when they come 
out with something new?


WISPs. Sometimes you guys drive me nuts. You are like cheerleaders 
that love to date the quarterbacks who abuse you. That is like selling 
a car that falls apart once you leave residential streets. None of you 
should ever have accepted these golf carts to run your fleets. 
Sometimes, cheap is just cheap.


Boy, I'm gonna hear it from my vendor peers, but this ain't a game or 
just a job for me. I damn sure hope it ain't that for you either.


*Patrick Leary*

***M*727.501.3735

<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>


*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Glen Waldrop
*Sent:* Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:08 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

Sort of off topic, but what would be the smallest AP we could get?

I'm thinking about using this system on a few of my towers to make 
sure we never leave without a new customer, but I serve a very rural area.


I have some towers with 15 clients.

Is an omni + GPS sync or narrow channel out of the question?

- Original Message -

*From:*Patrick Leary <mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>

*To:*tel...@wispa.org <mailto:tel...@wispa.org> ; af@afmug.com
<mailto:af@afmug.com>

*Sent:*Tuesday, March 03, 2015 4:42 PM

*Subject:*[AFMUG] New feedback

This is an interesting bit of commentary from one of our new
customers. If he wishes to identify himself, he will

*Patrick Leary*

 

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[TJ Trout]

Patrick, I think I asked 2 or 3 times, and maybe it's my fault and I missed
your reply, but what are the costs besides the radio and the antenna?

Remember guys this isn't a pmp450 or rocket m5, there is a bunch of
software and hardware on the backend that must be in place before a
customer can connect, right Patrick ?

If I had even a vague idea of what that part would cost, I might consider a
trial tower with 3 sectors...
On Mar 3, 2015 6:14 PM, "David Milholen"  wrote:

>  Patrick,
>  Please send me a product brochure and a few specs with a price list off
> list.
>
> Thanks
> Dave
>
>
>
> On 3/3/2015 8:08 PM, Patrick Leary wrote:
>
>  No, could be much less. Give me a minute...
>
>
>
> *Patrick Leary*
>
> *M* 727.501.3735
>
> <http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] *On
> Behalf Of *Josh Luthman
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 03, 2015 9:05 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
>
>
>
> Probably 20k to start. Quality over quantity.
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Mar 3, 2015 8:56 PM, "John Woodfield"  wrote:
>
> Patrick,
>
>
>
> I haven't had time to read through all this emails. Can you summarize what
> the lowest cost get up and running on a tower is so I can consider this
> further along with cost per sub?
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> John Woodfield, President
>
> Delmarva WiFi Inc.
>
> 410-870-WiFi
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: "Patrick Leary" 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 8:41pm
> To: "af@afmug.com" 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
>
> Alvarion did that. I admit, I'm not a fan of capping Glen. It is a
> gimmick. The hardware is what it is, and this hardware is expensive. 30dBm
> per port. 4 tx/4rx. Power is expensive. The highest quality DSPs on the
> market. not consumer grade stuff with the sensitivity of your in home Wi-Fi
> router. We build our own phy from the ground up too, our own ATPC
> algorithms too.
>
>
>
> On the software, we do that though -- enabling modularity and scale as you
> need to. I think I need to do a dedicated webinar to this community to walk
> you guys (or those inclined) through it (any takers?). I do not think we
> can be a solution that makes sense where you only have 15 clients. That's
> the blunt truth. Unless you are doing 50 Mbps customers, I am not your
> micropop (but I can do that in some modest scale). That said, I wonder
> where that 15 number comes from? Can you please explain on what
> architecture that is based? Range? Height? Etc. If it is based on a
> micropop and even then on what just that pop can see, I'd say that's likely
> a model invented out of necessity due to the poor performance of the system
> you are using.
>
>
>
> I had a guy on a call today. He zoomed me in on Google Earth to his "NLOS"
> area. Farmland with wind breaks and shade trees for the homes. He is at
> 400' and can't connect squat behind those breaks. In my world, that's LOS
> all the way, even at 150 ft. It is total garbage that so many systems to
> can't deal with that and you've all been fed that that is "normal." It is
> not. It is just gear with terrible specs where the only R&D is at the
> software level, and even that is scant. You do not have NLOS problems.
> You have equipment problems. How such a product ever was allowed to go to
> market as a "solution" for rural broadband is, to me, cynical and
> reflective of playing a market to skim opportunistic dollars from a market
> segment that sometimes seems to embrace abuse. Sort of like the poor 700
> MHz owners who got sucked in to buying 20 year old Marconi WipLL repackaged
> as a 700 MHz "solution" because all there was to buy. Then vendors do that
> crap and THEN, THEN tell you there's no backward compatibility when they
> come out with something new?
>
>
>
> WISPs. Sometimes you guys drive me nuts. You are like cheerleaders that
> love to date the quarterbacks who abuse you. That is like selling a car
> that falls apart once you leave residential streets. None of you should
> ever have accepted these golf carts to run your fleets. Sometimes, cheap is
> just cheap.
>
>
>
> Boy, I'm gonna hear it from my vendor peers, but this ain't a game or just
> a job for me. I damn sure hope it ain't that for you either.
>
>
>
> *Patrick Leary*
>
> *M* 727.501.3735
>
> <http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Ken Hohhof]

Population density is very low in some rural areas.  New construction has been 
pretty much nada, with the housing bust and wind farms, no new subdivisions, no 
farmettes.  The only houses are where farmhouses or 1 room schoolhouses used to 
stand.

Then factor in you just can’t achieve 100% market share.  No matter how good 
your service and price, some of the available subscribers will instead go with 
WISP competitors, DSL, satellite, mobile hotspot, or “I don’t need one of those 
newfangled computer thingies”.

So sometimes you’re doing good to get 15 subs.

Of course if you can double your range, you may quadruple the available market.

Someone on the list posted a few days back about not going through granite.  I 
assume even LTE can’t do that however.


From: Patrick Leary 
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 7:41 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

Alvarion did that. I admit, I'm not a fan of capping Glen. It is a gimmick. The 
hardware is what it is, and this hardware is expensive. 30dBm per port. 4 
tx/4rx. Power is expensive. The highest quality DSPs on the market. not 
consumer grade stuff with the sensitivity of your in home Wi-Fi router. We 
build our own phy from the ground up too, our own ATPC algorithms too. 

 

On the software, we do that though -- enabling modularity and scale as you need 
to. I think I need to do a dedicated webinar to this community to walk you guys 
(or those inclined) through it (any takers?). I do not think we can be a 
solution that makes sense where you only have 15 clients. That's the blunt 
truth. Unless you are doing 50 Mbps customers, I am not your micropop (but I 
can do that in some modest scale). That said, I wonder where that 15 number 
comes from? Can you please explain on what architecture that is based? Range? 
Height? Etc. If it is based on a micropop and even then on what just that pop 
can see, I'd say that's likely a model invented out of necessity due to the 
poor performance of the system you are using.

 

I had a guy on a call today. He zoomed me in on Google Earth to his "NLOS" 
area. Farmland with wind breaks and shade trees for the homes. He is at 400' 
and can't connect squat behind those breaks. In my world, that's LOS all the 
way, even at 150 ft. It is total garbage that so many systems to can't deal 
with that and you've all been fed that that is "normal." It is not. It is just 
gear with terrible specs where the only R&D is at the software level, and even 
that is scant. You do not have NLOS problems. You have equipment problems. 
How such a product ever was allowed to go to market as a "solution" for rural 
broadband is, to me, cynical and reflective of playing a market to skim 
opportunistic dollars from a market segment that sometimes seems to embrace 
abuse. Sort of like the poor 700 MHz owners who got sucked in to buying 20 year 
old Marconi WipLL repackaged as a 700 MHz "solution" because all there was to 
buy. Then vendors do that crap and THEN, THEN tell you there's no backward 
compatibility when they come out with something new? 

 

WISPs. Sometimes you guys drive me nuts. You are like cheerleaders that love to 
date the quarterbacks who abuse you. That is like selling a car that falls 
apart once you leave residential streets. None of you should ever have accepted 
these golf carts to run your fleets. Sometimes, cheap is just cheap.

 

Boy, I'm gonna hear it from my vendor peers, but this ain't a game or just a 
job for me. I damn sure hope it ain't that for you either.

 

  Patrick Leary

  M 727.501.3735 


 
   
 

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:08 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

 

Sort of off topic, but what would be the smallest AP we could get?

I'm thinking about using this system on a few of my towers to make sure we 
never leave without a new customer, but I serve a very rural area.

I have some towers with 15 clients.

Is an omni + GPS sync or narrow channel out of the question?

 

 

 

  - Original Message - 

  From: Patrick Leary 

  To: tel...@wispa.org ; af@afmug.com 

  Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 4:42 PM

  Subject: [AFMUG] New feedback

   

  This is an interesting bit of commentary from one of our new customers. If he 
wishes to identify himself, he will

   

Patrick Leary

M 727.501.3735 


   
 
   

   

   

  From: 

  Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 2:31 AM
  To: Patrick Leary; Nick Dewar
  Subject: Interesting Statistic

   

  "Patrick / Nick –

   

  Our Director of Operations, which you both met in St Louis, sent out an 
interesting email to our staff this evening. In February with only 20 working 
days we completed 40 installs with one technician... This is only icing on the 
cake

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Jaime Solorza]

1+

Jaime Solorza
On Mar 3, 2015 7:08 PM, "Patrick Leary"  wrote:

>  Have not heard Delmarva in a while. I grew up in No VA. The run out east
> toward OC was a rite of passage...and my first ticket. Damned tricky MD
> state troopers; they used to run 18 wheelers.
>
>
>
> If I do this in a webinar, would that work?
>
>
>
> *Patrick Leary*
>
> *M* 727.501.3735
>
> <http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *John Woodfield
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:56 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
>
>
>
> Patrick,
>
>
>
> I haven't had time to read through all this emails. Can you summarize what
> the lowest cost get up and running on a tower is so I can consider this
> further along with cost per sub?
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> John Woodfield, President
>
> Delmarva WiFi Inc.
>
> 410-870-WiFi
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: "Patrick Leary" 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 8:41pm
> To: "af@afmug.com" 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
>
> Alvarion did that. I admit, I'm not a fan of capping Glen. It is a
> gimmick. The hardware is what it is, and this hardware is expensive. 30dBm
> per port. 4 tx/4rx. Power is expensive. The highest quality DSPs on the
> market. not consumer grade stuff with the sensitivity of your in home Wi-Fi
> router. We build our own phy from the ground up too, our own ATPC
> algorithms too.
>
>
>
> On the software, we do that though -- enabling modularity and scale as you
> need to. I think I need to do a dedicated webinar to this community to walk
> you guys (or those inclined) through it (any takers?). I do not think we
> can be a solution that makes sense where you only have 15 clients. That's
> the blunt truth. Unless you are doing 50 Mbps customers, I am not your
> micropop (but I can do that in some modest scale). That said, I wonder
> where that 15 number comes from? Can you please explain on what
> architecture that is based? Range? Height? Etc. If it is based on a
> micropop and even then on what just that pop can see, I'd say that's likely
> a model invented out of necessity due to the poor performance of the system
> you are using.
>
>
>
> I had a guy on a call today. He zoomed me in on Google Earth to his "NLOS"
> area. Farmland with wind breaks and shade trees for the homes. He is at
> 400' and can't connect squat behind those breaks. In my world, that's LOS
> all the way, even at 150 ft. It is total garbage that so many systems to
> can't deal with that and you've all been fed that that is "normal." It is
> not. It is just gear with terrible specs where the only R&D is at the
> software level, and even that is scant. You do not have NLOS problems.
> You have equipment problems. How such a product ever was allowed to go to
> market as a "solution" for rural broadband is, to me, cynical and
> reflective of playing a market to skim opportunistic dollars from a market
> segment that sometimes seems to embrace abuse. Sort of like the poor 700
> MHz owners who got sucked in to buying 20 year old Marconi WipLL repackaged
> as a 700 MHz "solution" because all there was to buy. Then vendors do that
> crap and THEN, THEN tell you there's no backward compatibility when they
> come out with something new?
>
>
>
> WISPs. Sometimes you guys drive me nuts. You are like cheerleaders that
> love to date the quarterbacks who abuse you. That is like selling a car
> that falls apart once you leave residential streets. None of you should
> ever have accepted these golf carts to run your fleets. Sometimes, cheap is
> just cheap.
>
>
>
> Boy, I'm gonna hear it from my vendor peers, but this ain't a game or just
> a job for me. I damn sure hope it ain't that for you either.
>
>
>
> *Patrick Leary*
>
> *M* 727.501.3735
>
> <http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] *On
> Behalf Of *Glen Waldrop
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:08 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
>
>
>
> Sort of off topic, but what would be the smallest AP we could get?
>
> I'm thinking about using this system on a few of my towers to make sure we
> never leave without a new customer, but I serve a very rural area.
>
> I have some towers with 15 clients.
>
> Is an omni + GPS sync or narrow channel out of the question?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  - Original Mess

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[David Milholen]

Patrick,
 Please send me a product brochure and a few specs with a price list 
off list.


Thanks
Dave



On 3/3/2015 8:08 PM, Patrick Leary wrote:


No, could be much less. Give me a minute...

*Patrick Leary*

***M*727.501.3735

<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>


*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman
*Sent:* Tuesday, March 03, 2015 9:05 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

Probably 20k to start. Quality over quantity.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Mar 3, 2015 8:56 PM, "John Woodfield" <mailto:john.woodfi...@jwcn.biz>> wrote:


Patrick,

I haven't had time to read through all this emails. Can you summarize 
what the lowest cost get up and running on a tower is so I can 
consider this further along with cost per sub?


Thanks,

John Woodfield, President

Delmarva WiFi Inc.

410-870-WiFi



-Original Message-
From: "Patrick Leary" <mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>>

Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 8:41pm
To: "af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>" <mailto:af@afmug.com>>

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

Alvarion did that. I admit, I'm not a fan of capping Glen. It is a 
gimmick. The hardware is what it is, and this hardware is expensive. 
30dBm per port. 4 tx/4rx. Power is expensive. The highest quality DSPs 
on the market. not consumer grade stuff with the sensitivity of your 
in home Wi-Fi router. We build our own phy from the ground up too, our 
own ATPC algorithms too.


On the software, we do that though -- enabling modularity and scale as 
you need to. I think I need to do a dedicated webinar to this 
community to walk you guys (or those inclined) through it (any 
takers?). I do not think we can be a solution that makes sense where 
you only have 15 clients. That's the blunt truth. Unless you are doing 
50 Mbps customers, I am not your micropop (but I can do that in some 
modest scale). That said, I wonder where that 15 number comes from? 
Can you please explain on what architecture that is based? Range? 
Height? Etc. If it is based on a micropop and even then on what just 
that pop can see, I'd say that's likely a model invented out of 
necessity due to the poor performance of the system you are using.


I had a guy on a call today. He zoomed me in on Google Earth to his 
"NLOS" area. Farmland with wind breaks and shade trees for the homes. 
He is at 400' and can't connect squat behind those breaks. In my 
world, that's LOS all the way, even at 150 ft. It is total garbage 
that so many systems to can't deal with that and you've all been fed 
that that is "normal." It is not. It is just gear with terrible specs 
where the only R&D is at the software level, and even that is scant. 
You do not have NLOS problems. You have equipment problems. How 
such a product ever was allowed to go to market as a "solution" for 
rural broadband is, to me, cynical and reflective of playing a market 
to skim opportunistic dollars from a market segment that sometimes 
seems to embrace abuse. Sort of like the poor 700 MHz owners who got 
sucked in to buying 20 year old Marconi WipLL repackaged as a 700 MHz 
"solution" because all there was to buy. Then vendors do that crap and 
THEN, THEN tell you there's no backward compatibility when they come 
out with something new?


WISPs. Sometimes you guys drive me nuts. You are like cheerleaders 
that love to date the quarterbacks who abuse you. That is like selling 
a car that falls apart once you leave residential streets. None of you 
should ever have accepted these golf carts to run your fleets. 
Sometimes, cheap is just cheap.


Boy, I'm gonna hear it from my vendor peers, but this ain't a game or 
just a job for me. I damn sure hope it ain't that for you either.


*Patrick Leary*

*M*727.501.3735 

<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] 
*On Behalf Of *Glen Waldrop

*Sent:* Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:08 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

Sort of off topic, but what would be the smallest AP we could get?

I'm thinking about using this system on a few of my towers to make 
sure we never leave without a new customer, but I serve a very rural area.


I have some towers with 15 clients.

Is an omni + GPS sync or narrow channel out of the question?

- Original Message -

*From:*Patrick Leary <mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>

*To:*tel...@wispa.org <mailto:tel...@wispa.org> ; af@afmug.com
<mailto:af@afmug.com>

*Sent:*Tuesday, March 03, 2015 4:42 PM

*Subject:*[AFMUG] New feedback

This is an interesting bit of commentary from one of our new
customers. If he wishes to identify himself, he will

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Patrick Leary]

That's a tough nut. You need the power, but not the capacity, and it is the 
power that cost the money.

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image001.png@01D055F4.F443A740]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of That One Guy
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:56 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

sometimes, in a rural area there are only 15 people who want internet in an 
area beyond dialup. I dont know what it is they are still even able to do on 
dialup, but there is still alot of it around here, i dont even know where they 
get modems these days, but the rural rural market, not rural to and urban area, 
just sometimes doesnt have a population that wants anything

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 7:41 PM, Patrick Leary 
mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>> wrote:
Alvarion did that. I admit, I'm not a fan of capping Glen. It is a gimmick. The 
hardware is what it is, and this hardware is expensive. 30dBm per port. 4 
tx/4rx. Power is expensive. The highest quality DSPs on the market. not 
consumer grade stuff with the sensitivity of your in home Wi-Fi router. We 
build our own phy from the ground up too, our own ATPC algorithms too.

On the software, we do that though -- enabling modularity and scale as you need 
to. I think I need to do a dedicated webinar to this community to walk you guys 
(or those inclined) through it (any takers?). I do not think we can be a 
solution that makes sense where you only have 15 clients. That's the blunt 
truth. Unless you are doing 50 Mbps customers, I am not your micropop (but I 
can do that in some modest scale). That said, I wonder where that 15 number 
comes from? Can you please explain on what architecture that is based? Range? 
Height? Etc. If it is based on a micropop and even then on what just that pop 
can see, I'd say that's likely a model invented out of necessity due to the 
poor performance of the system you are using.

I had a guy on a call today. He zoomed me in on Google Earth to his "NLOS" 
area. Farmland with wind breaks and shade trees for the homes. He is at 400' 
and can't connect squat behind those breaks. In my world, that's LOS all the 
way, even at 150 ft. It is total garbage that so many systems to can't deal 
with that and you've all been fed that that is "normal." It is not. It is just 
gear with terrible specs where the only R&D is at the software level, and even 
that is scant. You do not have NLOS problems. You have equipment problems. 
How such a product ever was allowed to go to market as a "solution" for rural 
broadband is, to me, cynical and reflective of playing a market to skim 
opportunistic dollars from a market segment that sometimes seems to embrace 
abuse. Sort of like the poor 700 MHz owners who got sucked in to buying 20 year 
old Marconi WipLL repackaged as a 700 MHz "solution" because all there was to 
buy. Then vendors do that crap and THEN, THEN tell you there's no backward 
compatibility when they come out with something new?

WISPs. Sometimes you guys drive me nuts. You are like cheerleaders that love to 
date the quarterbacks who abuse you. That is like selling a car that falls 
apart once you leave residential streets. None of you should ever have accepted 
these golf carts to run your fleets. Sometimes, cheap is just cheap.

Boy, I'm gonna hear it from my vendor peers, but this ain't a game or just a 
job for me. I damn sure hope it ain't that for you either.

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image002.png@01D055F4.F443A740]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] On Behalf 
Of Glen Waldrop
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:08 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

Sort of off topic, but what would be the smallest AP we could get?

I'm thinking about using this system on a few of my towers to make sure we 
never leave without a new customer, but I serve a very rural area.

I have some towers with 15 clients.

Is an omni + GPS sync or narrow channel out of the question?



- Original Message -
From: Patrick Leary<mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>
To: tel...@wispa.org<mailto:tel...@wispa.org> ; 
af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 4:42 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] New feedback

This is an interesting bit of commentary from one of our new customers. If he 
wishes to identify himself, he will

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image002.png@01D055F4.F443A740]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>





From:
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 2:31 AM
To: Patrick Leary; Nick Dewar
Subject: Interesting Statistic

"Patrick / Nick –

Our Director of Operations, which you both met in St Louis, sent out an 
interesting email to our staff this evening. In February with only 20 working 
days we completed

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Patrick Leary]

I've examples of everything from an omni (11 dBi Alpha...pricey, but good) with 
4 degree EDT to 8 33 degree Alphas.

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image001.png@01D055F5.67B8D7E0]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of That One Guy
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 9:01 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

caveat that with lowest cost to get the full performance. when an omni comes 
out, you will have a lower cost, but you wont have full performance or range. 
skimming the material quickly, tho lowest configuration that gets close to 
factory spec is 3 base stations/sector antennas, is this correct?

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 7:56 PM, John Woodfield 
mailto:john.woodfi...@jwcn.biz>> wrote:

Patrick,



I haven't had time to read through all this emails. Can you summarize what the 
lowest cost get up and running on a tower is so I can consider this further 
along with cost per sub?





Thanks,







John Woodfield, President

Delmarva WiFi Inc.

410-870-WiFi


-Original Message-
From: "Patrick Leary" 
mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 8:41pm
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
Alvarion did that. I admit, I'm not a fan of capping Glen. It is a gimmick. The 
hardware is what it is, and this hardware is expensive. 30dBm per port. 4 
tx/4rx. Power is expensive. The highest quality DSPs on the market. not 
consumer grade stuff with the sensitivity of your in home Wi-Fi router. We 
build our own phy from the ground up too, our own ATPC algorithms too.

On the software, we do that though -- enabling modularity and scale as you need 
to. I think I need to do a dedicated webinar to this community to walk you guys 
(or those inclined) through it (any takers?). I do not think we can be a 
solution that makes sense where you only have 15 clients. That's the blunt 
truth. Unless you are doing 50 Mbps customers, I am not your micropop (but I 
can do that in some modest scale). That said, I wonder where that 15 number 
comes from? Can you please explain on what architecture that is based? Range? 
Height? Etc. If it is based on a micropop and even then on what just that pop 
can see, I'd say that's likely a model invented out of necessity due to the 
poor performance of the system you are using.

I had a guy on a call today. He zoomed me in on Google Earth to his "NLOS" 
area. Farmland with wind breaks and shade trees for the homes. He is at 400' 
and can't connect squat behind those breaks. In my world, that's LOS all the 
way, even at 150 ft. It is total garbage that so many systems to can't deal 
with that and you've all been fed that that is "normal." It is not. It is just 
gear with terrible specs where the only R&D is at the software level, and even 
that is scant. You do not have NLOS problems. You have equipment problems. 
How such a product ever was allowed to go to market as a "solution" for rural 
broadband is, to me, cynical and reflective of playing a market to skim 
opportunistic dollars from a market segment that sometimes seems to embrace 
abuse. Sort of like the poor 700 MHz owners who got sucked in to buying 20 year 
old Marconi WipLL repackaged as a 700 MHz "solution" because all there was to 
buy. Then vendors do that crap and THEN, THEN tell you there's no backward 
compatibility when they come out with something new?

WISPs. Sometimes you guys drive me nuts. You are like cheerleaders that love to 
date the quarterbacks who abuse you. That is like selling a car that falls 
apart once you leave residential streets. None of you should ever have accepted 
these golf carts to run your fleets. Sometimes, cheap is just cheap.

Boy, I'm gonna hear it from my vendor peers, but this ain't a game or just a 
job for me. I damn sure hope it ain't that for you either.

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image002.png@01D055F5.67B8D7E0]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>






From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] On Behalf 
Of Glen Waldrop
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:08 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

Sort of off topic, but what would be the smallest AP we could get?

I'm thinking about using this system on a few of my towers to make sure we 
never leave without a new customer, but I serve a very rural area.

I have some towers with 15 clients.

Is an omni + GPS sync or narrow channel out of the question?



- Original Message -
From: Patrick Leary<mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>
To: tel...@wispa.org<mailto:tel...@wispa.org> ; 
af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 4:42 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] New feedback

This is an interesting bit of commentary from o

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Patrick Leary]

Have not heard Delmarva in a while. I grew up in No VA. The run out east toward 
OC was a rite of passage...and my first ticket. Damned tricky MD state 
troopers; they used to run 18 wheelers.

If I do this in a webinar, would that work?

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image001.png@01D055F5.3B217020]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of John Woodfield
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:56 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback


Patrick,



I haven't had time to read through all this emails. Can you summarize what the 
lowest cost get up and running on a tower is so I can consider this further 
along with cost per sub?





Thanks,







John Woodfield, President

Delmarva WiFi Inc.

410-870-WiFi


-Original Message-
From: "Patrick Leary" 
mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 8:41pm
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
Alvarion did that. I admit, I'm not a fan of capping Glen. It is a gimmick. The 
hardware is what it is, and this hardware is expensive. 30dBm per port. 4 
tx/4rx. Power is expensive. The highest quality DSPs on the market. not 
consumer grade stuff with the sensitivity of your in home Wi-Fi router. We 
build our own phy from the ground up too, our own ATPC algorithms too.

On the software, we do that though -- enabling modularity and scale as you need 
to. I think I need to do a dedicated webinar to this community to walk you guys 
(or those inclined) through it (any takers?). I do not think we can be a 
solution that makes sense where you only have 15 clients. That's the blunt 
truth. Unless you are doing 50 Mbps customers, I am not your micropop (but I 
can do that in some modest scale). That said, I wonder where that 15 number 
comes from? Can you please explain on what architecture that is based? Range? 
Height? Etc. If it is based on a micropop and even then on what just that pop 
can see, I'd say that's likely a model invented out of necessity due to the 
poor performance of the system you are using.

I had a guy on a call today. He zoomed me in on Google Earth to his "NLOS" 
area. Farmland with wind breaks and shade trees for the homes. He is at 400' 
and can't connect squat behind those breaks. In my world, that's LOS all the 
way, even at 150 ft. It is total garbage that so many systems to can't deal 
with that and you've all been fed that that is "normal." It is not. It is just 
gear with terrible specs where the only R&D is at the software level, and even 
that is scant. You do not have NLOS problems. You have equipment problems. 
How such a product ever was allowed to go to market as a "solution" for rural 
broadband is, to me, cynical and reflective of playing a market to skim 
opportunistic dollars from a market segment that sometimes seems to embrace 
abuse. Sort of like the poor 700 MHz owners who got sucked in to buying 20 year 
old Marconi WipLL repackaged as a 700 MHz "solution" because all there was to 
buy. Then vendors do that crap and THEN, THEN tell you there's no backward 
compatibility when they come out with something new?

WISPs. Sometimes you guys drive me nuts. You are like cheerleaders that love to 
date the quarterbacks who abuse you. That is like selling a car that falls 
apart once you leave residential streets. None of you should ever have accepted 
these golf carts to run your fleets. Sometimes, cheap is just cheap.

Boy, I'm gonna hear it from my vendor peers, but this ain't a game or just a 
job for me. I damn sure hope it ain't that for you either.

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image002.png@01D055F5.3B217020]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>






From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:08 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

Sort of off topic, but what would be the smallest AP we could get?

I'm thinking about using this system on a few of my towers to make sure we 
never leave without a new customer, but I serve a very rural area.

I have some towers with 15 clients.

Is an omni + GPS sync or narrow channel out of the question?



- Original Message -
From: Patrick Leary<mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>
To: tel...@wispa.org<mailto:tel...@wispa.org> ; 
af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 4:42 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] New feedback

This is an interesting bit of commentary from one of our new customers. If he 
wishes to identify himself, he will

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image002.png@01D055F5.3B217020]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>






From:
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 2:31 AM
To: Patrick Leary; Nick Dewar
Subject: Interesting Statistic

"Patrick / Nick –

Our D

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Patrick Leary]

No, could be much less. Give me a minute...

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image001.png@01D055F5.E1039040]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 9:05 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback


Probably 20k to start. Quality over quantity.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mar 3, 2015 8:56 PM, "John Woodfield" 
mailto:john.woodfi...@jwcn.biz>> wrote:

Patrick,



I haven't had time to read through all this emails. Can you summarize what the 
lowest cost get up and running on a tower is so I can consider this further 
along with cost per sub?





Thanks,







John Woodfield, President

Delmarva WiFi Inc.

410-870-WiFi


-Original Message-
From: "Patrick Leary" 
mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 8:41pm
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
Alvarion did that. I admit, I'm not a fan of capping Glen. It is a gimmick. The 
hardware is what it is, and this hardware is expensive. 30dBm per port. 4 
tx/4rx. Power is expensive. The highest quality DSPs on the market. not 
consumer grade stuff with the sensitivity of your in home Wi-Fi router. We 
build our own phy from the ground up too, our own ATPC algorithms too.

On the software, we do that though -- enabling modularity and scale as you need 
to. I think I need to do a dedicated webinar to this community to walk you guys 
(or those inclined) through it (any takers?). I do not think we can be a 
solution that makes sense where you only have 15 clients. That's the blunt 
truth. Unless you are doing 50 Mbps customers, I am not your micropop (but I 
can do that in some modest scale). That said, I wonder where that 15 number 
comes from? Can you please explain on what architecture that is based? Range? 
Height? Etc. If it is based on a micropop and even then on what just that pop 
can see, I'd say that's likely a model invented out of necessity due to the 
poor performance of the system you are using.

I had a guy on a call today. He zoomed me in on Google Earth to his "NLOS" 
area. Farmland with wind breaks and shade trees for the homes. He is at 400' 
and can't connect squat behind those breaks. In my world, that's LOS all the 
way, even at 150 ft. It is total garbage that so many systems to can't deal 
with that and you've all been fed that that is "normal." It is not. It is just 
gear with terrible specs where the only R&D is at the software level, and even 
that is scant. You do not have NLOS problems. You have equipment problems. 
How such a product ever was allowed to go to market as a "solution" for rural 
broadband is, to me, cynical and reflective of playing a market to skim 
opportunistic dollars from a market segment that sometimes seems to embrace 
abuse. Sort of like the poor 700 MHz owners who got sucked in to buying 20 year 
old Marconi WipLL repackaged as a 700 MHz "solution" because all there was to 
buy. Then vendors do that crap and THEN, THEN tell you there's no backward 
compatibility when they come out with something new?

WISPs. Sometimes you guys drive me nuts. You are like cheerleaders that love to 
date the quarterbacks who abuse you. That is like selling a car that falls 
apart once you leave residential streets. None of you should ever have accepted 
these golf carts to run your fleets. Sometimes, cheap is just cheap.

Boy, I'm gonna hear it from my vendor peers, but this ain't a game or just a 
job for me. I damn sure hope it ain't that for you either.

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image002.png@01D055F5.E1039040]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>






From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] On Behalf 
Of Glen Waldrop
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:08 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

Sort of off topic, but what would be the smallest AP we could get?

I'm thinking about using this system on a few of my towers to make sure we 
never leave without a new customer, but I serve a very rural area.

I have some towers with 15 clients.

Is an omni + GPS sync or narrow channel out of the question?



- Original Message -
From: Patrick Leary<mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>
To: tel...@wispa.org<mailto:tel...@wispa.org> ; 
af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 4:42 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] New feedback

This is an interesting bit of commentary from one of our new customers. If he 
wishes to identify himself, he will

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image002.png@01D055F5.E1039040]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>






From:
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 2:31 AM
To: Patric

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Josh Luthman]

Probably 20k to start. Quality over quantity.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mar 3, 2015 8:56 PM, "John Woodfield"  wrote:

> Patrick,
>
>
>
> I haven't had time to read through all this emails. Can you summarize what
> the lowest cost get up and running on a tower is so I can consider this
> further along with cost per sub?
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> John Woodfield, President
>
> Delmarva WiFi Inc.
>
> 410-870-WiFi
>
>
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: "Patrick Leary" 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 8:41pm
> To: "af@afmug.com" 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
>
>  Alvarion did that. I admit, I'm not a fan of capping Glen. It is a
> gimmick. The hardware is what it is, and this hardware is expensive. 30dBm
> per port. 4 tx/4rx. Power is expensive. The highest quality DSPs on the
> market. not consumer grade stuff with the sensitivity of your in home Wi-Fi
> router. We build our own phy from the ground up too, our own ATPC
> algorithms too.
>
>
>
> On the software, we do that though -- enabling modularity and scale as you
> need to. I think I need to do a dedicated webinar to this community to walk
> you guys (or those inclined) through it (any takers?). I do not think we
> can be a solution that makes sense where you only have 15 clients. That's
> the blunt truth. Unless you are doing 50 Mbps customers, I am not your
> micropop (but I can do that in some modest scale). That said, I wonder
> where that 15 number comes from? Can you please explain on what
> architecture that is based? Range? Height? Etc. If it is based on a
> micropop and even then on what just that pop can see, I'd say that's likely
> a model invented out of necessity due to the poor performance of the system
> you are using.
>
>
>
> I had a guy on a call today. He zoomed me in on Google Earth to his "NLOS"
> area. Farmland with wind breaks and shade trees for the homes. He is at
> 400' and can't connect squat behind those breaks. In my world, that's LOS
> all the way, even at 150 ft. It is total garbage that so many systems to
> can't deal with that and you've all been fed that that is "normal." It is
> not. It is just gear with terrible specs where the only R&D is at the
> software level, and even that is scant. You do not have NLOS problems.
> You have equipment problems. How such a product ever was allowed to go to
> market as a "solution" for rural broadband is, to me, cynical and
> reflective of playing a market to skim opportunistic dollars from a market
> segment that sometimes seems to embrace abuse. Sort of like the poor 700
> MHz owners who got sucked in to buying 20 year old Marconi WipLL repackaged
> as a 700 MHz "solution" because all there was to buy. Then vendors do that
> crap and THEN, THEN tell you there's no backward compatibility when they
> come out with something new?
>
>
>
> WISPs. Sometimes you guys drive me nuts. You are like cheerleaders that
> love to date the quarterbacks who abuse you. That is like selling a car
> that falls apart once you leave residential streets. None of you should
> ever have accepted these golf carts to run your fleets. Sometimes, cheap is
> just cheap.
>
>
>
> Boy, I'm gonna hear it from my vendor peers, but this ain't a game or just
> a job for me. I damn sure hope it ain't that for you either.
>
>
>
> *Patrick Leary*
>
> *M* 727.501.3735
>
> <http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Glen Waldrop
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:08 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
>
>
>
> Sort of off topic, but what would be the smallest AP we could get?
>
> I'm thinking about using this system on a few of my towers to make sure we
> never leave without a new customer, but I serve a very rural area.
>
> I have some towers with 15 clients.
>
> Is an omni + GPS sync or narrow channel out of the question?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  - Original Message -
>
> *From:* Patrick Leary 
>
> *To:* tel...@wispa.org ; af@afmug.com
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 03, 2015 4:42 PM
>
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] New feedback
>
>
>
> This is an interesting bit of commentary from one of our new customers. If
> he wishes to identify himself, he will
>
>
>
> *Patrick Leary*
>
> *M* 727.501.3735
>
> <http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:*
>
> *Sent

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[That One Guy]

caveat that with lowest cost to get the full performance. when an omni
comes out, you will have a lower cost, but you wont have full performance
or range. skimming the material quickly, tho lowest configuration that gets
close to factory spec is 3 base stations/sector antennas, is this correct?

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 7:56 PM, John Woodfield 
wrote:

> Patrick,
>
>
>
> I haven't had time to read through all this emails. Can you summarize what
> the lowest cost get up and running on a tower is so I can consider this
> further along with cost per sub?
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> John Woodfield, President
>
> Delmarva WiFi Inc.
>
> 410-870-WiFi
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: "Patrick Leary" 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 8:41pm
> To: "af@afmug.com" 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
>
>  Alvarion did that. I admit, I'm not a fan of capping Glen. It is a
> gimmick. The hardware is what it is, and this hardware is expensive. 30dBm
> per port. 4 tx/4rx. Power is expensive. The highest quality DSPs on the
> market. not consumer grade stuff with the sensitivity of your in home Wi-Fi
> router. We build our own phy from the ground up too, our own ATPC
> algorithms too.
>
>
>
> On the software, we do that though -- enabling modularity and scale as you
> need to. I think I need to do a dedicated webinar to this community to walk
> you guys (or those inclined) through it (any takers?). I do not think we
> can be a solution that makes sense where you only have 15 clients. That's
> the blunt truth. Unless you are doing 50 Mbps customers, I am not your
> micropop (but I can do that in some modest scale). That said, I wonder
> where that 15 number comes from? Can you please explain on what
> architecture that is based? Range? Height? Etc. If it is based on a
> micropop and even then on what just that pop can see, I'd say that's likely
> a model invented out of necessity due to the poor performance of the system
> you are using.
>
>
>
> I had a guy on a call today. He zoomed me in on Google Earth to his "NLOS"
> area. Farmland with wind breaks and shade trees for the homes. He is at
> 400' and can't connect squat behind those breaks. In my world, that's LOS
> all the way, even at 150 ft. It is total garbage that so many systems to
> can't deal with that and you've all been fed that that is "normal." It is
> not. It is just gear with terrible specs where the only R&D is at the
> software level, and even that is scant. You do not have NLOS problems.
> You have equipment problems. How such a product ever was allowed to go to
> market as a "solution" for rural broadband is, to me, cynical and
> reflective of playing a market to skim opportunistic dollars from a market
> segment that sometimes seems to embrace abuse. Sort of like the poor 700
> MHz owners who got sucked in to buying 20 year old Marconi WipLL repackaged
> as a 700 MHz "solution" because all there was to buy. Then vendors do that
> crap and THEN, THEN tell you there's no backward compatibility when they
> come out with something new?
>
>
>
> WISPs. Sometimes you guys drive me nuts. You are like cheerleaders that
> love to date the quarterbacks who abuse you. That is like selling a car
> that falls apart once you leave residential streets. None of you should
> ever have accepted these golf carts to run your fleets. Sometimes, cheap is
> just cheap.
>
>
>
> Boy, I'm gonna hear it from my vendor peers, but this ain't a game or just
> a job for me. I damn sure hope it ain't that for you either.
>
>
>
> *Patrick Leary*
>
> *M* 727.501.3735
>
> <http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Glen Waldrop
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:08 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
>
>
>
> Sort of off topic, but what would be the smallest AP we could get?
>
> I'm thinking about using this system on a few of my towers to make sure we
> never leave without a new customer, but I serve a very rural area.
>
> I have some towers with 15 clients.
>
> Is an omni + GPS sync or narrow channel out of the question?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  - Original Message -
>
> *From:* Patrick Leary 
>
> *To:* tel...@wispa.org ; af@afmug.com
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 03, 2015 4:42 PM
>
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] New feedback
>
>
>
> This is an interesting bit of commentary from one of our new customers. If
> he wishes to identify himself, he will
>
>
&

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[John Woodfield]

Patrick,
 
I haven't had time to read through all this emails. Can you summarize what the lowest cost get up and running on a tower is so I can consider this further along with cost per sub?
 
 
Thanks,
 
 
 

John Woodfield, President
Delmarva WiFi Inc.
410-870-WiFi

-Original Message-From: "Patrick Leary" Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 8:41pmTo: "af@afmug.com" Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback



Alvarion did that. I admit, I'm not a fan of capping Glen. It is a gimmick. The hardware is what it is, and this hardware is expensive. 30dBm per port. 4 tx/4rx. Power is expensive. The highest quality DSPs on the market. not consumer grade stuff with the sensitivity of your in home Wi-Fi router. We build our own phy from the ground up too, our own ATPC algorithms too. 
 
On the software, we do that though -- enabling modularity and scale as you need to. I think I need to do a dedicated webinar to this community to walk you guys (or those inclined) through it (any takers?). I do not think we can be a solution that makes sense where you only have 15 clients. That's the blunt truth. Unless you are doing 50 Mbps customers, I am not your micropop (but I can do that in some modest scale). That said, I wonder where that 15 number comes from? Can you please explain on what architecture that is based? Range? Height? Etc. If it is based on a micropop and even then on what just that pop can see, I'd say that's likely a model invented out of necessity due to the poor performance of the system you are using.
 
I had a guy on a call today. He zoomed me in on Google Earth to his "NLOS" area. Farmland with wind breaks and shade trees for the homes. He is at 400' and can't connect squat behind those breaks. In my world, that's LOS all the way, even at 150 ft. It is total garbage that so many systems to can't deal with that and you've all been fed that that is "normal." It is not. It is just gear with terrible specs where the only R&D is at the software level, and even that is scant. You do not have NLOS problems. You have equipment problems. How such a product ever was allowed to go to market as a "solution" for rural broadband is, to me, cynical and reflective of playing a market to skim opportunistic dollars from a market segment that sometimes seems to embrace abuse. Sort of like the poor 700 MHz owners who got sucked in to buying 20 year old Marconi WipLL repackaged as a 700 MHz "solution" because all there was to buy. Then vendors do that crap and THEN, THEN tell you there's no backward compatibility when they come out with something new? 
 
WISPs. Sometimes you guys drive me nuts. You are like cheerleaders that love to date the quarterbacks who abuse you. That is like selling a car that falls apart once you leave residential streets. None of you should ever have accepted these golf carts to run your fleets. Sometimes, cheap is just cheap.
 
Boy, I'm gonna hear it from my vendor peers, but this ain't a game or just a job for me. I damn sure hope it ain't that for you either.
 





Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735








 







 
 


From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen WaldropSent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:08 PMTo: af@afmug.comSubject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback


 

Sort of off topic, but what would be the smallest AP we could get? I'm thinking about using this system on a few of my towers to make sure we never leave without a new customer, but I serve a very rural area. I have some towers with 15 clients. Is an omni + GPS sync or narrow channel out of the question?


 


 


 



- Original Message - 


From: Patrick Leary 


To: tel...@wispa.org ; af@afmug.com 


Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 4:42 PM


Subject: [AFMUG] New feedback


 

This is an interesting bit of commentary from one of our new customers. If he wishes to identify himself, he will
 





Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735








 







 
 


From:
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 2:31 AMTo: Patrick Leary; Nick DewarSubject: Interesting Statistic


 
"Patrick / Nick –
 
Our Director of Operations, which you both met in St Louis, sent out an interesting email to our staff this evening. In February with only 20 working days we completed 40 installs with one technician... This is only icing on the cake, especially since we are onboarding two more techs... I ran some additional numbers and found that out of the “Telrad” installations that we scheduled, 100 % were successful both of these months. This is a game changer, and it proves that we can eliminate the need to waste further time with the dreaded site surveys.  Our success is not without the help of Telrad’s Compact solution.  Truly amazing and inspiring, excited for our aggressive expansion this spring/summer/fall.  I cannot wait to have hundreds of these damn things

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[That One Guy]

sometimes, in a rural area there are only 15 people who want internet in an
area beyond dialup. I dont know what it is they are still even able to do
on dialup, but there is still alot of it around here, i dont even know
where they get modems these days, but the rural rural market, not rural to
and urban area, just sometimes doesnt have a population that wants anything

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 7:41 PM, Patrick Leary 
wrote:

>  Alvarion did that. I admit, I'm not a fan of capping Glen. It is a
> gimmick. The hardware is what it is, and this hardware is expensive. 30dBm
> per port. 4 tx/4rx. Power is expensive. The highest quality DSPs on the
> market. not consumer grade stuff with the sensitivity of your in home Wi-Fi
> router. We build our own phy from the ground up too, our own ATPC
> algorithms too.
>
>
>
> On the software, we do that though -- enabling modularity and scale as you
> need to. I think I need to do a dedicated webinar to this community to walk
> you guys (or those inclined) through it (any takers?). I do not think we
> can be a solution that makes sense where you only have 15 clients. That's
> the blunt truth. Unless you are doing 50 Mbps customers, I am not your
> micropop (but I can do that in some modest scale). That said, I wonder
> where that 15 number comes from? Can you please explain on what
> architecture that is based? Range? Height? Etc. If it is based on a
> micropop and even then on what just that pop can see, I'd say that's likely
> a model invented out of necessity due to the poor performance of the system
> you are using.
>
>
>
> I had a guy on a call today. He zoomed me in on Google Earth to his "NLOS"
> area. Farmland with wind breaks and shade trees for the homes. He is at
> 400' and can't connect squat behind those breaks. In my world, that's LOS
> all the way, even at 150 ft. It is total garbage that so many systems to
> can't deal with that and you've all been fed that that is "normal." It is
> not. It is just gear with terrible specs where the only R&D is at the
> software level, and even that is scant. You do not have NLOS problems.
> You have equipment problems. How such a product ever was allowed to go to
> market as a "solution" for rural broadband is, to me, cynical and
> reflective of playing a market to skim opportunistic dollars from a market
> segment that sometimes seems to embrace abuse. Sort of like the poor 700
> MHz owners who got sucked in to buying 20 year old Marconi WipLL repackaged
> as a 700 MHz "solution" because all there was to buy. Then vendors do that
> crap and THEN, THEN tell you there's no backward compatibility when they
> come out with something new?
>
>
>
> WISPs. Sometimes you guys drive me nuts. You are like cheerleaders that
> love to date the quarterbacks who abuse you. That is like selling a car
> that falls apart once you leave residential streets. None of you should
> ever have accepted these golf carts to run your fleets. Sometimes, cheap is
> just cheap.
>
>
>
> Boy, I'm gonna hear it from my vendor peers, but this ain't a game or just
> a job for me. I damn sure hope it ain't that for you either.
>
>
>
> *Patrick Leary*
>
> *M* 727.501.3735
>
> <http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Glen Waldrop
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:08 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] New feedback
>
>
>
> Sort of off topic, but what would be the smallest AP we could get?
>
> I'm thinking about using this system on a few of my towers to make sure we
> never leave without a new customer, but I serve a very rural area.
>
> I have some towers with 15 clients.
>
> Is an omni + GPS sync or narrow channel out of the question?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  - Original Message -
>
> *From:* Patrick Leary 
>
> *To:* tel...@wispa.org ; af@afmug.com
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 03, 2015 4:42 PM
>
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] New feedback
>
>
>
> This is an interesting bit of commentary from one of our new customers. If
> he wishes to identify himself, he will
>
>
>
> *Patrick Leary*
>
> *M* 727.501.3735
>
> <http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:*
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 03, 2015 2:31 AM
> *To:* Patrick Leary; Nick Dewar
> *Subject:* Interesting Statistic
>
>
>
> "Patrick / Nick –
>
>
>
> Our Director of Operations, which you both met in St Louis, sent out an
> interesting email to our staff this evening. In February with only 20
> working days we completed 40 installs with one 

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Patrick Leary]

Alvarion did that. I admit, I'm not a fan of capping Glen. It is a gimmick. The 
hardware is what it is, and this hardware is expensive. 30dBm per port. 4 
tx/4rx. Power is expensive. The highest quality DSPs on the market. not 
consumer grade stuff with the sensitivity of your in home Wi-Fi router. We 
build our own phy from the ground up too, our own ATPC algorithms too.

On the software, we do that though -- enabling modularity and scale as you need 
to. I think I need to do a dedicated webinar to this community to walk you guys 
(or those inclined) through it (any takers?). I do not think we can be a 
solution that makes sense where you only have 15 clients. That's the blunt 
truth. Unless you are doing 50 Mbps customers, I am not your micropop (but I 
can do that in some modest scale). That said, I wonder where that 15 number 
comes from? Can you please explain on what architecture that is based? Range? 
Height? Etc. If it is based on a micropop and even then on what just that pop 
can see, I'd say that's likely a model invented out of necessity due to the 
poor performance of the system you are using.

I had a guy on a call today. He zoomed me in on Google Earth to his "NLOS" 
area. Farmland with wind breaks and shade trees for the homes. He is at 400' 
and can't connect squat behind those breaks. In my world, that's LOS all the 
way, even at 150 ft. It is total garbage that so many systems to can't deal 
with that and you've all been fed that that is "normal." It is not. It is just 
gear with terrible specs where the only R&D is at the software level, and even 
that is scant. You do not have NLOS problems. You have equipment problems. 
How such a product ever was allowed to go to market as a "solution" for rural 
broadband is, to me, cynical and reflective of playing a market to skim 
opportunistic dollars from a market segment that sometimes seems to embrace 
abuse. Sort of like the poor 700 MHz owners who got sucked in to buying 20 year 
old Marconi WipLL repackaged as a 700 MHz "solution" because all there was to 
buy. Then vendors do that crap and THEN, THEN tell you there's no backward 
compatibility when they come out with something new?

WISPs. Sometimes you guys drive me nuts. You are like cheerleaders that love to 
date the quarterbacks who abuse you. That is like selling a car that falls 
apart once you leave residential streets. None of you should ever have accepted 
these golf carts to run your fleets. Sometimes, cheap is just cheap.

Boy, I'm gonna hear it from my vendor peers, but this ain't a game or just a 
job for me. I damn sure hope it ain't that for you either.

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image004.png@01D055F2.351416E0]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:08 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

Sort of off topic, but what would be the smallest AP we could get?

I'm thinking about using this system on a few of my towers to make sure we 
never leave without a new customer, but I serve a very rural area.

I have some towers with 15 clients.

Is an omni + GPS sync or narrow channel out of the question?



- Original Message -
From: Patrick Leary<mailto:patrick.le...@telrad.com>
To: tel...@wispa.org<mailto:tel...@wispa.org> ; 
af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 4:42 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] New feedback

This is an interesting bit of commentary from one of our new customers. If he 
wishes to identify himself, he will

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image003.png@01D055F0.94B1D9E0]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>





From:
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 2:31 AM
To: Patrick Leary; Nick Dewar
Subject: Interesting Statistic

"Patrick / Nick -

Our Director of Operations, which you both met in St Louis, sent out an 
interesting email to our staff this evening. In February with only 20 working 
days we completed 40 installs with one technician... This is only icing on the 
cake, especially since we are onboarding two more techs... I ran some 
additional numbers and found that out of the "Telrad" installations that we 
scheduled, 100 % were successful both of these months. This is a game changer, 
and it proves that we can eliminate the need to waste further time with the 
dreaded site surveys.  Our success is not without the help of Telrad's Compact 
solution.  Truly amazing and inspiring, excited for our aggressive expansion 
this spring/summer/fall.  I cannot wait to have hundreds of these damn things 
in the air.

Excited and thankful to be a part of the LTE Beta, and am thankful for the 
"Holy Grail" email that introduced us to the product"

Re: [AFMUG] New feedback

[Glen Waldrop]

Sort of off topic, but what would be the smallest AP we could get?

I'm thinking about using this system on a few of my towers to make sure we 
never leave without a new customer, but I serve a very rural area.

I have some towers with 15 clients.

Is an omni + GPS sync or narrow channel out of the question?



  - Original Message - 
  From: Patrick Leary 
  To: tel...@wispa.org ; af@afmug.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 4:42 PM
  Subject: [AFMUG] New feedback


  This is an interesting bit of commentary from one of our new customers. If he 
wishes to identify himself, he will

   

Patrick Leary

M 727.501.3735 


   
 
   

   

   

  From: 

  Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 2:31 AM
  To: Patrick Leary; Nick Dewar
  Subject: Interesting Statistic

   

  "Patrick / Nick -

   

  Our Director of Operations, which you both met in St Louis, sent out an 
interesting email to our staff this evening. In February with only 20 working 
days we completed 40 installs with one technician... This is only icing on the 
cake, especially since we are onboarding two more techs... I ran some 
additional numbers and found that out of the "Telrad" installations that we 
scheduled, 100 % were successful both of these months. This is a game changer, 
and it proves that we can eliminate the need to waste further time with the 
dreaded site surveys.  Our success is not without the help of Telrad's Compact 
solution.  Truly amazing and inspiring, excited for our aggressive expansion 
this spring/summer/fall.  I cannot wait to have hundreds of these damn things 
in the air.  

   

  Excited and thankful to be a part of the LTE Beta, and am thankful for the 
"Holy Grail" email that introduced us to the product"

   





  

  This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
  PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer 
viruses.