[WISPA] What are south burbs doing about broadband Internet?
What are south burbs doing about broadband Internet? Broadband: Still a buzzword for local leaders in Scott and Dakota counties. By Sarah Lemagie, Star Tribune Last update: December 12, 2006 – 10:16 AM As Minneapolis and suburbs such as St. Louis Park move ahead with citywide wireless initiatives, broadband continues to be a hot topic for south-metro leaders. Dozens of them -- including state, city, county and industry representatives -- met last week for a workshop that resulted in the formation of a regional broadband task force to look for ways to bring low-cost, high-speed communications services to government buildings and the public. Below, an update on where the discussion is now. Q What are south-metro cities doing right now to improve broadband services? A So far, no south-metro community has rolled out a citywide broadband initiative on the scale of suburbs such as St. Louis Park and Chaska, but Eagan, Lakeville and Shakopee have all discussed the idea and taken preliminary steps such as conducting community Internet satisfaction surveys. The Burnsville City Council studied broadband availability for months before telling city staff this fall to work with existing Internet providers to meet the council's goal of providing high-speed Internet of 50 to 100 megabits per second to every home and business in the city. Last month, telephone company Frontier Communications reached an agreement with the city to roll out community-wide wireless service within two years, a plan that company and city representatives said came together more quickly because of the council's interest in broadband. Frontier is also working on similar agreements with Apple Valley, Rosemount, Lakeville and Farmington. Dakota County is continuing an ongoing project to connect public buildings with high-speed fiber-optic cable, and Scott County recently began planning a 90-mile fiber-optic loop that would link up with Dakota County's network. Q Why do local government leaders care about broadband? A Competing in the global marketplace is a concern even for suburban leaders. Consumer prices are an issue, too. In Eagan, for example, a typical residential customer pays $27 to $43 for Internet service of six to eight megabits per second, while Amsterdam residents can pay a comparable price for 20-megabit-per-second connections, said city Communications Director Tom Garrison. Q What models are they looking at? A Minnesota suburbs have their eye on cutting-edge community broadband initiatives such as the Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency (UTOPIA), a consortium of 14 cities outside Salt Lake City that have banded together to provide low-cost fiber-optic Internet connections with speeds of 100 megabits per second to all their residents. Q What are the obstacles, according to local experts? A Cost, an uncertain regulatory environment and lack of legislative support are all hurdles. Filling in local leaders on the benefits of broadband can also be a challenge. You have to educate your elected officials, because they're going to make the decision, said Burnsville Communications Coordinator Jim Skelly. They're not going to vote yes on it if they don't understand it. Lack of a champion for the cause was part of the reason that Shakopee's telecommunications advisory committee recently decided not to continue its study of citywide broadband, said chairman Bill Anderson. No one was chomping at the bit to make it happen, he said. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Study: Broadband big with home Web users
Tuesday, December 12, 2006 · Last updated 12:21 p.m. PT Study: Broadband big with home Web users THE ASSOCIATED PRESS NEW YORK -- More than three-quarters of residential Web users got on the Internet using a high-speed broadband connection in November, according to a study released Tuesday. The 78 percent broadband penetration rate for U.S. homes represents a jump from 65 percent a year earlier, Nielsen/NetRatings found. The research company said broadband users spent 33 percent more time online than dial-up users - nearly 35 hours for the month, compared with 26 hours and some change for dial-up. Broadband users also viewed twice as many Web pages. Games, instant messaging, e-mail and social networking were among the leading activities among high-speed users. What most of these Web sites have in common is that they engage the consumer for an extended period of time by offering a way to connect with others, said Carolyn Creekmore, Nielsen/NetRatings' senior director of media analytics. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Welcome Imagestream - WISPA's Newest Vendor Member!
Welcome Jeff - J.C and whole ImageStream gang! I don't know what the rest of you guys/gal's think, but to me - - WISPA is gaining ground, industry recognition and respect amongst our peer's. When we have quality vendors (such as we have) coming on-board it tells me that we will soon have the tools in the arsenal to really make a huge difference in the industry that we are a part of. The future looks very bright - indeed. Mac Dearman WISPA members: ImageStream is delighted to become a vendor-member of this fine organization. We believe that WISPA is by WISPs and for WISPs. You have great leadership, and I expect that the future will bring great progress! ImageStream manufactures and sells complete Linux-based routers. We provide 24/7 support. ImageStream routers also support high-end router features such as BGP, QoS, VRRP, and just about any application that a WISP would need, with enough horsepower to still run your circuits at line-speed. ImageStream is a profitable, privately held company located in Plymouth Indiana. We were formed in 1995 and we shipped the first complete commercial Linux router in 1999. We attended the 2nd WISPCON at the behest of one of our customers and have been excited about working with WISPs every since. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! Jeff Broadwick Sales Manager, ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) +1 574-935-8488 (Fax) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] remote power
We use APC. http://apc.com/resource/include/techspec_index.cfm?base_sku=AP7900 Very nice unit. Has a WAP interface for cell phones. Sends alerts like the UPS network interfaces. Displays AMP usage. May not be the cheapest out there, but it's very refined and backed by a reputable company. Dylan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of chris cooper Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:57 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] remote power Can anyone share what they use for remote power management/reboot devices? Thanks Chris -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Welcome Imagestream - WISPA's Newest Vendor Member!
It also means that at some point organization will have to be established with committees to handle recruiting new, paid members; vendors; etc. Vendors need to get ROI - pay back on the membership fee. Vendors need member support, just as members need Vendor support. If you have a favorite vendor, why not ask them to join WISPA? It's your org and you need to help it grow and thrive as well. (It's not just the Board who's unpaid job it is to do all the heavy lifting). I have been on the Board at 2 ISP associations (names withheld on purpose :). Members always complain about the dues. My suggestion was that we reduce the dues based on hours spent working for the ORG. So if you were active on 2 committees, perhaps your dues were reduced by 50 or 65%. Just a thought to bat around. Same with a vendor. Some vendors cannot cost justify $1000 per year. For instance, a DSL modem company would have to move 1000 modems or more to ROI the membership fee. Just some early morning ramblings. - Peter @ RAD-INFO, Inc. Mac Dearman wrote: Welcome Jeff - J.C and whole ImageStream gang! I don't know what the rest of you guys/gal's think, but to me - - WISPA is gaining ground, industry recognition and respect amongst our peer's. When we have quality vendors (such as we have) coming on-board it tells me that we will soon have the tools in the arsenal to really make a huge difference in the industry that we are a part of. The future looks very bright - indeed. Mac Dearman -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
I spent an hour or so yesterday on the phone with the Director of Sales for Exalt. We are working on getting one of their backhauls in for testing now. From the specs... I like that I can deploy it similar to Canopy backhauls because of the sync. I like that it is a tri-band radio like the Trango Atlas. I like that it has software switchable polarization like the Trango Atlas. I like that it has multiple choices for channel width. I dislike that it takes a 64Mhz channel to get 100Mbps full duplex. -Matt Bob Moldashel wrote: OK...Lets have a review.. It does not use the whole band. It has GPS sync so you can use multiple links on the same channel. That makes it efficient... It works for the application.. There is a big difference of opinion here regarding spectrum usage. My way of seeing it is as follows. 1. I always install links with the largest possible antennas to keep my beamwidth as narrow as possible regardless of distance. In NYC I consistently use 2' antennas for links one mile or less. 2. We use only the power we need to do the job. Many of our links are running 0-5 dB of output at the radio. 3. We always mount antennas using rooftop structures or adjacent buildings to shield us from others. 4. Interference happens. We have not had any interference with FD constant carrier radios. Period. Another position is why should several users be allowed to use equipment that eats up the band passing say a simple video stream and such?? How is that efficient They are eating channels running a couple of megs.I'm eating it running 100 Mb FD. How about the WISP's that are using 120* sector antennas and throwing RF all over the place every time one of his 3 subscribers decides to use their system?? How is that spectrum efficency??? Or the guy that uses an omni and the 1 watt amp??? I can go on and on. The spectrum is limited. That sucks. But business is business and it is important to do what is necessary to provide for your business at the most cost effective manner possible. Is WalMart going to be considerate of you if you have a little 5 10 store on the next block??? Of course not. And why??? Because they are serving the masses at a price that the masses want and that is what it takes to serve the masses. Will some of the 510 operators go out of business because they can't compete?? Sure they will. Its called competition. And that is just what Matt is doing. If he has the demand then he needs to do what is necessary. If his business model does not allow him to purchase expensive licensed equipment over cheaper unlicensed equipment then so be it. That's business. I came from the 2 way radio industry. I fought the beast (Nextel) for several years before it finally killed the 2-way radio industry. I was somewhat fortunate because we did predominately Public Safety and Government accounts. We were the ones to get up at 2AM on a Sunday to fix a base station while all the 2-way shops that were doing 9-5 business customers were home sleeping. When nextel killed 2-way dispatch all the other radio shops decided to start fixing Public safety and Govt customer equip. The labor rate went from $100 per hour to $40 per hour just so guys could survive. Many went out of business. Am I upset??? Sure. Did I plan for my future?? Sure. We turned on big time to microwave 12 years ago when most of you didn't even know about it. As such we have avoided the dreaded Nextel monster. Am I going to be able to do what I am doing forever??? Of course not. I am already planning my next transition. If most of you guys think you are going to be WISP's 10+ years from now I think you need to re-examine your business plan I am sure that many will be unhappy with this rant but I think it needs to be real food for thought. If I was in business and i needed 100 Mb FD of throughput between locations I'll be damned if I am going to spend extra money for equipment so I don't interfere with someone else in the future. PLEASE NOTE*I AM NOT ENDORSING INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE BY ANYONE. So please don't say I am Good luck! -B- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
And, how much do you like the price? Travis Matt Liotta wrote: I spent an hour or so yesterday on the phone with the Director of Sales for Exalt. We are working on getting one of their backhauls in for testing now. From the specs... I like that I can deploy it similar to Canopy backhauls because of the sync. I like that it is a tri-band radio like the Trango Atlas. I like that it has software switchable polarization like the Trango Atlas. I like that it has multiple choices for channel width. I dislike that it takes a 64Mhz channel to get 100Mbps full duplex. -Matt Bob Moldashel wrote: OK...Lets have a review.. It does not use the whole band. It has GPS sync so you can use multiple links on the same channel. That makes it efficient... It works for the application.. There is a big difference of opinion here regarding spectrum usage. My way of seeing it is as follows. 1. I always install links with the largest possible antennas to keep my beamwidth as narrow as possible regardless of distance. In NYC I consistently use 2' antennas for links one mile or less. 2. We use only the power we need to do the job. Many of our links are running 0-5 dB of output at the radio. 3. We always mount antennas using rooftop structures or adjacent buildings to shield us from others. 4. Interference happens. We have not had any interference with FD constant carrier radios. Period. Another position is why should several users be allowed to use equipment that eats up the band passing say a simple video stream and such?? How is that efficient They are eating channels running a couple of megs.I'm eating it running 100 Mb FD. How about the WISP's that are using 120* sector antennas and throwing RF all over the place every time one of his 3 subscribers decides to use their system?? How is that spectrum efficency??? Or the guy that uses an omni and the 1 watt amp??? I can go on and on. The spectrum is limited. That sucks. But business is business and it is important to do what is necessary to provide for your business at the most cost effective manner possible. Is WalMart going to be considerate of you if you have a little 5 10 store on the next block??? Of course not. And why??? Because they are serving the masses at a price that the masses want and that is what it takes to serve the masses. Will some of the 510 operators go out of business because they can't compete?? Sure they will. Its called competition. And that is just what Matt is doing. If he has the demand then he needs to do what is necessary. If his business model does not allow him to purchase expensive licensed equipment over cheaper unlicensed equipment then so be it. That's business. I came from the 2 way radio industry. I fought the beast (Nextel) for several years before it finally killed the 2-way radio industry. I was somewhat fortunate because we did predominately Public Safety and Government accounts. We were the ones to get up at 2AM on a Sunday to fix a base station while all the 2-way shops that were doing 9-5 business customers were home sleeping. When nextel killed 2-way dispatch all the other radio shops decided to start fixing Public safety and Govt customer equip. The labor rate went from $100 per hour to $40 per hour just so guys could survive. Many went out of business. Am I upset??? Sure. Did I plan for my future?? Sure. We turned on big time to microwave 12 years ago when most of you didn't even know about it. As such we have avoided the dreaded Nextel monster. Am I going to be able to do what I am doing forever??? Of course not. I am already planning my next transition. If most of you guys think you are going to be WISP's 10+ years from now I think you need to re-examine your business plan I am sure that many will be unhappy with this rant but I think it needs to be real food for thought. If I was in business and i needed 100 Mb FD of throughput between locations I'll be damned if I am going to spend extra money for equipment so I don't interfere with someone else in the future. PLEASE NOTE*I AM NOT ENDORSING INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE BY ANYONE. So please don't say I am Good luck! -B- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
So there is no misunderstanding. My original comment was based on radios like early WMUX, that used the whole spectrum range. I have nothing against high capacity radios 100mbps FDX and Higher. I don't have anything against selecting higher capacity radios when needed, or chosing a radio that is less efficient because it is the only radio capable to meet the need, or required to get the job done. Where my beef is, is using an unefficient radio to accomplish something when an efficient radio is available to deliver equivellent speed (at a reasonable cost). Price is not everything. As WISPs we have a responsibility to do the best job we can. We are not obligated to sacrifice, but we are obligated to live by example and do the best we can, with consideration of others in the environment. If someone is doing that, I have no beef, regardless of the technology that is used. My post was not about wether PTP or PTMP or any specific radio or deployment design was more efficient than another, and irrelevent because there is a requirement for all types that have issues more important than the efficiency. My point was what ever method was chosen, the provider should be aware to install the most efficient system possible that does not have a significant trade off, within reason. I'd always recommend a 100mbps FX radio that used 32 mhz of spectrum over one that used 100Mhz of spectrum. There are so many people that just put up links, and then say if I don't have problem with interference thats all that matters. That is selfish and foolish. Its not true that interference is bi-directional. The high gain system is going to kill the lower gain system. The responsible thing to do is to do a channel scan/survey to see the free-est channel, and then broadcast on that channel, with the intent to avoid interference to others. It is clear as day what is and isn't good etiquette, and those that do not follow it, will ultimately loose in my prediction. In my earlier days, if I felt interference, I just switched to another channel to avoid the conflict, an advantage Trango gave me easilly. But we don't do it anymore, we hold our ground. If our link is up, and we see new interference on it, we go after the interferer until they move. I can tell you, if someone puts up a radio using all 100mhz of spectrum, and it happens to cross one of our cellsite or subscribers taking them down, the offendor's link will be taken down (made unusable) within 24 hours, that I promise and guarantee. Why do I say that, because I'm follow your advise Bob, business is business. What comes around goes around. I got a radio on the shelf that I call the Equalizer ready and waiting, and 200 class A/B roof tops to create a ligitimate PtP link to take it down. NOBODY is above/invulnerable to interference. And a tech is fooling theirself is their strategy is they are always going to deploy smarter than the next guy. We all have the same gear available to us. The length of this industry depends on the players. We can rush our selves to extiction or we can preach and follow etiquette. Bob, I also use narrow beam 2ft antenna with low tx power for short PTPs to avoid interference, and sometimes that works well enough (even with spectrum wasting radios). But not always. Sometimes it send a large number of reflections bouncing all across the city which are adative to all the other noise sources. I'd still argue using a radio that is more efficient will have less risk, if one is available that can meet the need. The problem with using a radio that uses full 100mhz is that there is no way to immediately resurrect interference, with no channel to run to, without contacting the interferor. This forces your interfered with to resort to desperate measures to resolve the interference on their own link. It brings out the worse in your newly created enemy. Its best to allow your apponent a mechanism to cure the problem without being required to taking you down back, and asking questions later. Its about conflict avoidance not winning a conflict. The truth is its almost impossible to tell whether you will interfere with some one else. The reason is that you can scan for noise, but you can't tell what equipment the other party is using , what noise floor they require to opperate, or the distance of their link. Again if you scan first, and the channel is empty, there is no issue here. But I find it rare in DC to find ANY channel that is EMPTY. The challenge is usually what do I have to do to get over the noise floor. A 2ft dish still have a beamwidth of minimum 6deg, which covers a lot of territory indense Urban america. Rant done. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:11 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] high
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Not sure which radios your reffering to as not being FCC certified but you should dig deeper than the surface. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 7:23 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Gigacom product is the only one that you can get any real long distance out of depending on the freq. They have licensed radios that perform very well in the rainforest of South America at very long distance. 60k or 40 miles for some applications at speeds of up to a Gig. One of if not the best Gig. radio on the mrkt. Those radios aren't FCC certified. And no, I won't being using an experimental license until they are certified like the sales person suggested. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Again, since we only run PtP gear our signal well exceeds everyone else's. That's my point. You feel it doesn't matter because your signal is stronger and you initially survive. The Ostrage syndrom, if I stick my head in a hole and don't see it, it must not be there. Or the I care about me mentality. The point is, it doesn't stay that way. Soon your competitor has a PTP to, but now at an even higher signal above yours. Before you know it, you both are escalating to 4ft dishes and heavy duty mounts, and hit with bills for second trips by installation constractor to install them, and negotiations with property owners to install them, etc. Again, if you aren't interfering with other, and spectrum is free, my arguement does not apply. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 8:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options Tom DeReggi wrote: Matt, If you live in a remote area, with no potential interferers, then my comment does not apply. But last I heard you were deploying in the middle of Urban Atlanta and possibly Urban DC, with the potential for many interferers eventually. We mostly deploy in urban areas, but we do a good bit of rural as well. We don't really run into interference from others; mostly self-interference from putting too many links on a site. Again, since we only run PtP gear our signal well exceeds everyone else's. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Tom DeReggi wrote: If our link is up, and we see new interference on it, we go after the interferer until they move. I can tell you, if someone puts up a radio using all 100mhz of spectrum, and it happens to cross one of our cellsite or subscribers taking them down, the offendor's link will be taken down (made unusable) within 24 hours, that I promise and guarantee. Why do I say that, because I'm follow your advise Bob, business is business. What comes around goes around. I got a radio on the shelf that I call the Equalizer ready and waiting, and 200 class A/B roof tops to create a ligitimate PtP link to take it down. NOBODY is above/invulnerable to interference. And a tech is fooling theirself is their strategy is they are always going to deploy smarter than the next guy. We all have the same gear available to us. The above both in your suggested course of action and the fact that you state it on a public mailing list easily searchable by Google almost ensures a law suit should you ever take your suggested course of action. There are numerous better ways to deal with interference and/or competitors. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Travis Johnson wrote: And, how much do you like the price? I haven't gotten final pricing yet, but I was led to believe it was comparable to Orthogon. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Bob, Great rant! Coming from the same industry you have I totally agree. You have to face the facts unpleasant as they may be. This reminds me of the old saying My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts! Too many start up WISP's have this viewpoint and won't pay attention to folks like you who have been down this wireless road time and time again. History does repeat itself, for those who have not been in this game long enough to have lived it, they should take advice from those like you have already learned the lessons at least once if not twice before Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com http://www.wirelessmapping.com -Original Message- From: Bob Moldashel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:43 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options OK...Lets have a review.. It does not use the whole band. It has GPS sync so you can use multiple links on the same channel. That makes it efficient... It works for the application.. There is a big difference of opinion here regarding spectrum usage. My way of seeing it is as follows. 1. I always install links with the largest possible antennas to keep my beamwidth as narrow as possible regardless of distance. In NYC I consistently use 2' antennas for links one mile or less. 2. We use only the power we need to do the job. Many of our links are running 0-5 dB of output at the radio. 3. We always mount antennas using rooftop structures or adjacent buildings to shield us from others. 4. Interference happens. We have not had any interference with FD constant carrier radios. Period. Another position is why should several users be allowed to use equipment that eats up the band passing say a simple video stream and such?? How is that efficient They are eating channels running a couple of megs.I'm eating it running 100 Mb FD. How about the WISP's that are using 120* sector antennas and throwing RF all over the place every time one of his 3 subscribers decides to use their system?? How is that spectrum efficency??? Or the guy that uses an omni and the 1 watt amp??? I can go on and on. The spectrum is limited. That sucks. But business is business and it is important to do what is necessary to provide for your business at the most cost effective manner possible. Is WalMart going to be considerate of you if you have a little 5 10 store on the next block??? Of course not. And why??? Because they are serving the masses at a price that the masses want and that is what it takes to serve the masses. Will some of the 510 operators go out of business because they can't compete?? Sure they will. Its called competition. And that is just what Matt is doing. If he has the demand then he needs to do what is necessary. If his business model does not allow him to purchase expensive licensed equipment over cheaper unlicensed equipment then so be it. That's business. I came from the 2 way radio industry. I fought the beast (Nextel) for several years before it finally killed the 2-way radio industry. I was somewhat fortunate because we did predominately Public Safety and Government accounts. We were the ones to get up at 2AM on a Sunday to fix a base station while all the 2-way shops that were doing 9-5 business customers were home sleeping. When nextel killed 2-way dispatch all the other radio shops decided to start fixing Public safety and Govt customer equip. The labor rate went from $100 per hour to $40 per hour just so guys could survive. Many went out of business. Am I upset??? Sure. Did I plan for my future?? Sure. We turned on big time to microwave 12 years ago when most of you didn't even know about it. As such we have avoided the dreaded Nextel monster. Am I going to be able to do what I am doing forever??? Of course not. I am already planning my next transition. If most of you guys think you are going to be WISP's 10+ years from now I think you need to re-examine your business plan I am sure that many will be unhappy with this rant but I think it needs to be real food for thought. If I was in business and i needed 100 Mb FD of throughput between locations I'll be damned if I am going to spend extra money for equipment so I don't interfere with someone else in the future. PLEASE NOTE*I AM NOT ENDORSING INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE BY ANYONE. So please don't say I am Good luck! -B- -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives:
Re: [WISPA] Outsourced installations (KyWiFi LLC)
I would say you're right Dylan so I am posting this reply on-list so everyone knows the outcome of our newest company policy regarding site surveys. (see below) Shannon D. Denniston, Co-Founder KyWiFi, LLC - Mt. Sterling, Kentucky Your Hometown Broadband Provider http://www.KyWiFi.com Call Us Today: 859.274.4033 === $29.99 DSL High Speed Internet $14.99 Home Phone Service $19.99 All Digital Satellite TV - No Phone Line Required for DSL - FREE Activation Equipment - Affordable Upfront Pricing - Locally Owned Operated - We Also Service Most Rural Areas === - Original Message - From: Dylan Oliver To: KyWiFi LLC Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 9:56 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Outsourced installations (KyWiFi LLC) Thanks for the quick reply! I'll bet others on the list would like to know.. On 12/13/06, KyWiFi LLC wrote: Hi Dylan, It's working out great, we have made it standard policy. We haven't had to charge anyone's credit card because they all have purchased our service following a successful site survey at their premises. Shannon D. Denniston, Co-Founder KyWiFi, LLC - Mt. Sterling, Kentucky Your Hometown Broadband Provider http://www.KyWiFi.com Call Us Today: 859.274.4033 === $29.99 DSL High Speed Internet $14.99 Home Phone Service $19.99 All Digital Satellite TV - No Phone Line Required for DSL - FREE Activation Equipment - Affordable Upfront Pricing - Locally Owned Operated - We Also Service Most Rural Areas === - Original Message - From: Dylan Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 9:44 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Outsourced installations (KyWiFi LLC) How's your new policy for site surveys working out? On 10/10/06, KyWiFi LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If it deters a tire kicker from wasting our company's resources, then I will be very happy. I don't believe it will deter anyone who is seriously wanting our broadband service as they will not be charged a site survey fee unless they decline service following a successful site survey at their location. If I forget, will someone please remind me in a couple months so I can report back whether or not our new site survey policy is successful or not. Sure will be nice if it works like your puppy story. ;-) Shannon D. Denniston, Co-Founder KyWiFi, LLC - Mt. Sterling, Kentucky Your Hometown Broadband Provider http://www.KyWiFi.com Call Us Today: 859.274.4033 === $29.99 DSL High Speed Internet $14.99 Home Phone Service $19.99 All Digital Satellite TV - No Phone Line Required for DSL - FREE Activation Equipment - Affordable Upfront Pricing - Locally Owned Operated - We Also Service Most Rural Areas === - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 10:45 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Outsourced installations (KyWiFi LLC) Its not that I don't understand or agree with your point of view, but I just question wether it will work based on unecessarily detering customers. Its hard enough getting someone willing to try wireless in the first place, and now you are saying that the odds of getting it aren't good enough to to risk your $29. If trying to get their business isn't worth $29 to you, They may not even bother to subscribe. On the flip side, if your business is like mine, and you focus on Business and sure things, the lost residential business may not be a bad thing, if it just isn;t financially viable to go after with money at risk. It also could end up working th opposite. You are establishing value for your time. Possibly preventing other from abusing/taking up your time in the future. And when you set a value, people recognize it as more valuable and want it more. It goes back to my puppy story. I put an add for free puppies in the paper, and nobody called. The next week I put an add Puppies only $25, and sold every one of them the first day the paper was out. I'm interested in seeing how it plays out for you over time, charging the survey fee. Let us know as the plan progresses. PS. This is also a factor of wether you are in a underserved or served area. There is more demand in an underserved area. In my urban market, everyone offers everything for free. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: KyWiFi LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 7:57 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Outsourced installations (KyWiFi LLC) I think those who decline our service following a successful site survey are just tire kickers. They almost always tell our
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Matt, Is it 64 Mhz in both directions (full 64Mhz TX), or 32 mhz in each direction (one for TX one for RX)? If 32Mhz in each direction, I'd argue pretty darn efficient for 100mbps FDX. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 9:18 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options I spent an hour or so yesterday on the phone with the Director of Sales for Exalt. We are working on getting one of their backhauls in for testing now. From the specs... I like that I can deploy it similar to Canopy backhauls because of the sync. I like that it is a tri-band radio like the Trango Atlas. I like that it has software switchable polarization like the Trango Atlas. I like that it has multiple choices for channel width. I dislike that it takes a 64Mhz channel to get 100Mbps full duplex. -Matt Bob Moldashel wrote: OK...Lets have a review.. It does not use the whole band. It has GPS sync so you can use multiple links on the same channel. That makes it efficient... It works for the application.. There is a big difference of opinion here regarding spectrum usage. My way of seeing it is as follows. 1. I always install links with the largest possible antennas to keep my beamwidth as narrow as possible regardless of distance. In NYC I consistently use 2' antennas for links one mile or less. 2. We use only the power we need to do the job. Many of our links are running 0-5 dB of output at the radio. 3. We always mount antennas using rooftop structures or adjacent buildings to shield us from others. 4. Interference happens. We have not had any interference with FD constant carrier radios. Period. Another position is why should several users be allowed to use equipment that eats up the band passing say a simple video stream and such?? How is that efficient They are eating channels running a couple of megs.I'm eating it running 100 Mb FD. How about the WISP's that are using 120* sector antennas and throwing RF all over the place every time one of his 3 subscribers decides to use their system?? How is that spectrum efficency??? Or the guy that uses an omni and the 1 watt amp??? I can go on and on. The spectrum is limited. That sucks. But business is business and it is important to do what is necessary to provide for your business at the most cost effective manner possible. Is WalMart going to be considerate of you if you have a little 5 10 store on the next block??? Of course not. And why??? Because they are serving the masses at a price that the masses want and that is what it takes to serve the masses. Will some of the 510 operators go out of business because they can't compete?? Sure they will. Its called competition. And that is just what Matt is doing. If he has the demand then he needs to do what is necessary. If his business model does not allow him to purchase expensive licensed equipment over cheaper unlicensed equipment then so be it. That's business. I came from the 2 way radio industry. I fought the beast (Nextel) for several years before it finally killed the 2-way radio industry. I was somewhat fortunate because we did predominately Public Safety and Government accounts. We were the ones to get up at 2AM on a Sunday to fix a base station while all the 2-way shops that were doing 9-5 business customers were home sleeping. When nextel killed 2-way dispatch all the other radio shops decided to start fixing Public safety and Govt customer equip. The labor rate went from $100 per hour to $40 per hour just so guys could survive. Many went out of business. Am I upset??? Sure. Did I plan for my future?? Sure. We turned on big time to microwave 12 years ago when most of you didn't even know about it. As such we have avoided the dreaded Nextel monster. Am I going to be able to do what I am doing forever??? Of course not. I am already planning my next transition. If most of you guys think you are going to be WISP's 10+ years from now I think you need to re-examine your business plan I am sure that many will be unhappy with this rant but I think it needs to be real food for thought. If I was in business and i needed 100 Mb FD of throughput between locations I'll be damned if I am going to spend extra money for equipment so I don't interfere with someone else in the future. PLEASE NOTE*I AM NOT ENDORSING INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE BY ANYONE. So please don't say I am Good luck! -B- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives:
[WISPA] Website update suggestion
While I like the layout of WISPA's website, I think the vendor member banners are too low on the main page. Why not create another page with the vendor member banners and the blurb that gets posted to the list? This link could be placed prominently on the top section of the main page. Just a suggestion -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting 573-276-2879 http://www.butchevans.com/ Mikrotik Certified Consultant (http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Considering my name comes up here several times I guess I should reply Tom DeReggi wrote: So there is no misunderstanding. My original comment was based on radios like early WMUX, that used the whole spectrum range. I have nothing against high capacity radios 100mbps FDX and Higher. I don't have anything against selecting higher capacity radios when needed, or chosing a radio that is less efficient because it is the only radio capable to meet the need, or required to get the job done. Where my beef is, is using an unefficient radio to accomplish something when an efficient radio is available to deliver equivellent speed (at a reasonable cost). Price is not everything. As WISPs we have a responsibility to do the best job we can. We are not obligated to sacrifice, but we are obligated to live by example and do the best we can, with consideration of others in the environment. If someone is doing that, I have no beef, regardless of the technology that is used. Unfortunately you are not going to get the same latency with a half duplex radio. So latency is one issue. Another is security. Using something that is proprietary also makes your network more secure. So those are 2 good issues to coinsider why to not use something like a Trango for large scale backhaul. My post was not about wether PTP or PTMP or any specific radio or deployment design was more efficient than another, and irrelevent because there is a requirement for all types that have issues more important than the efficiency. My point was what ever method was chosen, the provider should be aware to install the most efficient system possible that does not have a significant trade off, within reason. But what do you consider a significant tradeoff??? I'd always recommend a 100mbps FX radio that used 32 mhz of spectrum over one that used 100Mhz of spectrum. That's fine as long as it meets your business model. But is the 100 Mhz. is more economical and I am not using that spectrum, then why not use it?? There are so many people that just put up links, and then say if I don't have problem with interference thats all that matters. That is selfish and foolish. What should they do?? Assume that they are causing interference and what??? Shut down??? I think the best you can do is design a system within your knowledge base and budget. Its not true that interference is bi-directional. I know that... The high gain system is going to kill the lower gain system. Usually. C/I is obviously important. The responsible thing to do is to do a channel scan/survey to see the free-est channel, and then broadcast on that channel, with the intent to avoid interference to others. But you know that's not a given... It is clear as day what is and isn't good etiquette, and those that do not follow it, will ultimately loose in my prediction. In my earlier days, if I felt interference, I just switched to another channel to avoid the conflict, an advantage Trango gave me easilly. Exalt does that in 1 Mhz. channels. And you can switch polarities via software also. But we don't do it anymore, we hold our ground. If our link is up, and we see new interference on it, we go after the interferer until they move. What does go after mean I can tell you, if someone puts up a radio using all 100mhz of spectrum, and it happens to cross one of our cellsite or subscribers taking them down, the offendor's link will be taken down (made unusable) within 24 hours, that I promise and guarantee. Why do I say that, because I'm follow your advise Bob, business is business. Wait a minute..That is willful interference. I do not condone willful interference. So that is not my advise. I don't condone that nor should anyone else associated with WISPA. You should be searching them out and working out the issue. What comes around goes around. I got a radio on the shelf that I call the Equalizer ready and waiting, and 200 class A/B roof tops to create a ligitimate PtP link to take it down. NOBODY is above/invulnerable to interference. And a tech is fooling theirself is their strategy is they are always going to deploy smarter than the next guy. We all have the same gear available to us. The length of this industry depends on the players. We can rush our selves to extiction or we can preach and follow etiquette. The length of this industry has to do with competition. If Bill Gates can put up a satellite tomorrow and feed everyone 50 Mb with 1 ms of latency for $19/month, the WISP industry is DEAD! I don't care how you designed your system or how considerate you were to others. Bob, I also use narrow beam 2ft antenna with low tx power for short PTPs to avoid interference, and sometimes that works well enough (even with spectrum wasting radios). But not always. Sometimes it send a large number of reflections bouncing all across the city which are
RE: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Wow Tom. That comment is really out of character and your emotions must have gotten the best of you. Doing what you suggest with your Equalizer is going to get you in a boat load of trouble one day. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 8:58 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options Tom DeReggi wrote: If our link is up, and we see new interference on it, we go after the interferer until they move. I can tell you, if someone puts up a radio using all 100mhz of spectrum, and it happens to cross one of our cellsite or subscribers taking them down, the offendor's link will be taken down (made unusable) within 24 hours, that I promise and guarantee. Why do I say that, because I'm follow your advise Bob, business is business. What comes around goes around. I got a radio on the shelf that I call the Equalizer ready and waiting, and 200 class A/B roof tops to create a ligitimate PtP link to take it down. NOBODY is above/invulnerable to interference. And a tech is fooling theirself is their strategy is they are always going to deploy smarter than the next guy. We all have the same gear available to us. The above both in your suggested course of action and the fact that you state it on a public mailing list easily searchable by Google almost ensures a law suit should you ever take your suggested course of action. There are numerous better ways to deal with interference and/or competitors. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
state it on a public mailing list easily searchable by Google almost ensures a law suit should you ever take your suggested course of action. There are numerous better ways to deal with interference and/or competitors. I disagree. The reason is I have the right to install a Point to Point Link between any two buildings that I want. And if that is to pass low volume monitoring traffic so be it. If it happens to pass through a Competor's link so be it. Knowing that it passes a competitor's link and will take it down is irrelevent, as I can establish a legitimate need to install that link. I've made no threat to anyone for the specific case that arises, in that process, and I have a legitimate purpose other than to take someone down. I just don't care that I know someone will go down as a result, in that scenario. That is absolutely no different than the original installer that isntalled with ZERO care of who they were going to take down when they isntalled. The difference is the tables are turned and it forces the original party to take the burden of the cost, and motivate the interfering party to be more considerate, after they demonstrated that they originally did not have any consideration. I've never seen a case won where, Provider A takes down PRovider B, And then Provider B equalizes things to defend their link, and Provider A tried to SUE provider B, when Provider B was the original one that got Harmed by A. There would be absolutely no sympathy for the situation of Provider A. If anything, it could be argued by PRovider B, that Provider A initiated intentional harm, and knew you were there to harm you. That would be jsut as easy to prove as the reverse. Bringong attention to this type of thing in Court would jsut be foolish. It would be a different story If Provider B pointed directly at Provider A, in a way that it could be proven that the intent was solely to harm. Your mentality suggests that it is the burden of the person that gets interfered with to eat the cost to identify and source out the new interferer. It takes time and money to identify the person that interferes with me. I believe it is the New Entrant that has the responsibility to make sure they minimize the chances they will not step on an existing someone. Its also harder to prove intentional harm, when you haven't identified who the individual is that you are harming. Its a simple morality issue of... 1. Do on to others as you would want them to do for you. 2. when that fails, eye for an eye, to get them to think about rule 1. 3. when they find you, and the phone call comes in, work amicably to resolve. I'm not sure there is a better way to deal with interference. However, I am open to suggestions. The truth is, its rare that this methodology has to ever occur. The reason is that most WISPS and integrators respect etiquette. And we always first look if there is a more cost effective way to resolve the problem, such as narrow our antenna beam, or repointing around interference. And if we can easilly find the other party, we'd usually try an make a call first. But the problem occurs when, the other party is not easily found, (the antenna is easy to find, the responsible party isn't always in a timely manor), and the link quality can not be quickly be resolved. The provider that gets interferred with is desperate and has a client to answer to, and then extreme measures are needed. When at that point, its about survival, and setting an example, because the last thing you want is a loose canon integrator in town. I am not making any accusation of whether you are or are not deploying responsibly with etiquette, but simply defending my case of how interference gets dealt with in the real world. But the problem isn't me and my suggestions. I only had to use the equalizer once, and it was effective, and I even shared the cost of upgrading gear to make a resolutiuon to co-exist. What needs to be understood is there are a lot of players out there, and they are likely to respond the way that I suggested. The bully or I'm stronger approach just doesn't work in unlicensed, the only things that works is maximum effort to avoid interference. With that said I believe that this thread is getting way beyond the scope of what the original thread was. As the intent of the thread was whats a good 100mbps FDX radio, and it appears suggestions like Exalt, are going in the right direction, as responsible choices. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 9:58 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options Tom DeReggi wrote: If our link is up, and we see new interference on it, we go after the interferer until they move. I can tell you, if someone puts up a radio using all 100mhz
Re: [WISPA] Website update suggestion
I don't have a problem with it the way it is. However, I agree that we should make our vendor members a bit more prominent. I'd suggest that they also get rotated through a small banner at the top of the page. Or, maybe we should be more like the big boys, and sell *a* spot at the top of the page? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Butch Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Wispa List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 8:06 AM Subject: [WISPA] Website update suggestion While I like the layout of WISPA's website, I think the vendor member banners are too low on the main page. Why not create another page with the vendor member banners and the blurb that gets posted to the list? This link could be placed prominently on the top section of the main page. Just a suggestion -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting 573-276-2879 http://www.butchevans.com/ Mikrotik Certified Consultant (http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] ups feedback
Hi, I'm looking for feedback from the field on this UPS: Tripp Lite *SMART1200LCD (can be rack mounted, 2U)? They are about $100 less than a 2U-750-VA APC model ... thus the question. I've never used them so I wouldn't want to recommend it to the customer. Thanks. Mario* -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] spectrum analyzer
Blair, Check this out, www.torontosurplus.com, Techtronics 491 SA, $995.00, back in the day it was the best on the market Ron Wallace -Original Message- From: Blair Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 02:28 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] spectrum analyzer Well, I know we have been round and round this subject before, but, I am finally ready to buy a spectrum analyzer What I want Coverage of 900MHz, 2.3-2.5GHz, and 5-6GHz Absolute power readings... I don't really care what the range on the power readings is as I can adjust the level as needed with attenuators But, I wish to do repeatable testing and comparison of radio cards and pigtails with the unit... Portable I don't need, (but would not object), to a hand held unit, but a big rack mount won't do me much good Reasonable price 1K$ or so. Referb or recon is fine I'd consider used from someone well known on wispa Ext. antenna input Ideas? Suggestions? I remember some talking about hand-held units on here before. Any body ever get one and use it? Thanks -- Blair Davis AOL IM Screen Name -- Theory240 West Michigan Wireless ISP 269-686-8648 A division of: Camp Communication Services, INC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Bob, You've been in this industry a long time, and there is not much I can tell you that you do not already know. But respectfully I will reply. I have no problem with people installing Exalts, they are great radios. I have no problem with other providers and companies installing Radios in DC. There are hundreds of radios on the roofs of thousands of buildings co-existing nicely. I have a problem with the mentality of, If I'm OK, thats all that matters, if they got problems, thats their problem. It just doesn't work that way. Because the other party does not just go away and admit defeat. If you are not experiencing this, with your vast experience, the only answer can be that you are installing responsibly with the intent to minimize interfering with others. Because if you were taking down others, they would be fighting back, and you would feel it. Unfortunately you are not going to get the same latency with a half duplex radio. So latency is one issue. Another is security. Using something that is proprietary also makes your network more secure. So those are 2 good issues to coinsider why to not use something like a Trango for large scale backhaul. I'm not suggesting Trango or a Half Duplex radio is a better choice. If you need FDX, you need to select a radio that can do FDX. Just deploy the best choice for a FDX radio that you can find. I'm not challenging your choices, Im just pointing out that all WISPs should look for the best choice also considering efficiency as a major factor. But what do you consider a significant tradeoff??? Thats for you to decide, and wether its worth the taking on the higher risk of using a less efficent radio that could result in gaining a angry competitor. Again, my beef is not with radio choice, regardless of the type. My beef was with the attitude of who cares about the other, where the other doesn't even become a factor in the decission process. I'd always recommend a 100mbps FX radio that used 32 mhz of spectrum over one that used 100Mhz of spectrum. That's fine as long as it meets your business model. But is the 100 Mhz. is more economical and I am not using that spectrum, then why not use it?? Agreed, if its free, use it. If its not, you are putting a big risk on for your client. A 100Mhz radio is more likely to be interferred with by ANY future deployment of someone else. Why not make your client's link more resilient to future threats if you can? Unless you are getting paid by the hour and setting your client up to need Repeat maintenance work :-) So the point is, even if you only care about your self and your client, installing a more efficient radio more immune to future threats shows that you care about them. There are so many people that just put up links, and then say if I don't have problem with interference thats all that matters. That is selfish and foolish. What should they do?? Assume that they are causing interference and what??? Shut down??? No. (see next comment) I think the best you can do is design a system within your knowledge base and budget. Do exactly what you just said above, and design a system within your knowledge. And your knowledge knows that interference is a key issue that could arise when you install or in the future. And if there is a high noise floor, you are knowledgeable to know a conflict likely may occur. So think ahead, and make the best choice for your custoemr and maximize your resilience, by picking the most efficeint/interference resilient radio that you can, that meets the client's budget. Most integrators sell 100mbps radio because they make more money, not because the client needs it. Educate the client on what they need, and the risks, and make the best choice, considering all factors. The responsible thing to do is to do a channel scan/survey to see the free-est channel, and then broadcast on that channel, with the intent to avoid interference to others. But you know that's not a given... So when you did al you could, thats the best you can do, and you deploy what you ahve to deploy. Obviously your responsibility to your link is more important than your responsibility to others' links. But IF you can reduce risk, by selecting a more efficient radio, why would you not do it? Everyone wins. It is clear as day what is and isn't good etiquette, and those that do not follow it, will ultimately loose in my prediction. In my earlier days, if I felt interference, I just switched to another channel to avoid the conflict, an advantage Trango gave me easilly. Exalt does that in 1 Mhz. channels. And you can switch polarities via software also. I agree a Sweet radio. I just wish it was not so darn expensive. But we don't do it anymore, we hold our ground. If our link is up, and we see new interference on it, we go after the interferer until they move. What does go after mean I should have been more clear. We
[WISPA] ISPCON Orlando May 23-25
If you have ideas for sessions that you want to see at the next ISPCON, please let me know. Also, good time to book your room and your family trip for Orlando. Kayak.com has a great rate for the room at the Rosen at $150. Marriott condos are just $225. Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect Communicate 813.963.5884 http://www.marketingIDEAguy.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] guru opinions
Hi i have to ask again about a different setup i want to construct my radio not the hardware but software part, maybe using OpenBSD, Linux or FreeBSD or play with all of those in WARP or SOEKRIES but i need your opinion which one do you think its best, im wondering what to buy -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] ISPCON Orlando May 23-25
Doug Hass is looking at building a session on CALEA. Would that be of interest? Doug has an extensive data background, is well published, and is currently in law school, so he would have a very cogent perspective on this matter. Jeff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter R. Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 3:29 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] ISPCON Orlando May 23-25 If you have ideas for sessions that you want to see at the next ISPCON, please let me know. Also, good time to book your room and your family trip for Orlando. Kayak.com has a great rate for the room at the Rosen at $150. Marriott condos are just $225. Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect Communicate 813.963.5884 http://www.marketingIDEAguy.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ISPCON Orlando May 23-25
With all the FUD surrounding CALEA that would be a great idea. He might want to team up with Kris Twomey, attorney of the ISP stars. - Peter @ RAD-INFO, Inc. Jeff Broadwick wrote: Doug Hass is looking at building a session on CALEA. Would that be of interest? Doug has an extensive data background, is well published, and is currently in law school, so he would have a very cogent perspective on this matter. Jeff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter R. Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 3:29 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] ISPCON Orlando May 23-25 If you have ideas for sessions that you want to see at the next ISPCON, please let me know. Also, good time to book your room and your family trip for Orlando. Kayak.com has a great rate for the room at the Rosen at $150. Marriott condos are just $225. Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect Communicate 813.963.5884 http://www.marketingIDEAguy.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Bid For Equipment
We are moving into our next expansion of our network and upgrading the back-end. It consists of 20 projects to be completed in the next six months and we are looking for both leasing companies and vendors to bid on our list. For the purpose of asking your help in aiming in the right direction I have named the projects and itemized my suggested equipment purchase. From here you can ignore, learn or help change my mind. I'm open to anything. Thanks, Forbes Mercy President - Washington Broadband, Inc. Installation of Naches; 1a) 5.7 Canopy ap 1 @ $902.72 1b) SmartBridges 3201 2.4 ap4 @ $1,160 1c) 5.7 canopy reflector dishes 27rd4 @ $82.01 1d) Canopy power supply 5 @ $8.20 1e) Nema18x16x8 enclosure nb181608-100 3 @ $279 1f) Cisco 8 port switch 2940 8tt2 @ $595 1g) APC Back-ups-ls 500 4 @ $125.25 1h) Comet 12 dbi omni 2 @ $332.10 1i) 90 deg panel antenna hg2414sp-090 2 @ $129.99 1j) Cyclone 20 meg backhaul 2 @ $1,999 1k) Cyclone Radio wave 3 foot dish 2 @ $699.60 Total Project #1 = $14,815.14 Other Projects needing funding: 2) Atg-Cowiche - 20 meg Cyclone + 3 foot dishes x 2 $8,695.6 3) Atg-Ar02 - 20 meg Cyclone + 3 foot dishes x 2 $8,695.6 4) Moxee-Artower01 - 20 meg Cyclone + 3 foot dishes x 2 $8,695.6 5) Moxee-Ladybug - 20 meg Cyclone + 2 foot dishes x 2 $4,778 6) Moxee-Elephant - 20 meg Cyclone + 2 foot dishes x 2 $4,778 7) Moxee-Hill1 - 20 meg Cyclone + 3 foot dishes x 2 $8,695.6 8) Moxee-Artower01-Atg - 20 meg Cyclone + 3 foot dishes x 2 $8,695.6 9) Hill1, = nema enclosure + catalyst switch $874 10) Hill2 = another 60 watt solar panel + 2 more batteries + another polarized antenna + catalyst switch + radio $2,615 11) Rattlesnake-b – radio $1,160 12) Ladubug – another polarized antenna + switch$715 13) Artower – another polarized antenna + radio $1,280 14) Artower-01b – radio $1,160 15) Artower02 – radio + different polarized antenna $1,280 16) Artower02-wiley – radio $1,160 17) Cowiche 17a) Cowichen – radio + different polarized antenna $1,280 17b) Cowiches – radio + different polarized antenna $1,280 18) New tower above Wiley City – radio antenna$1,280 19) Cisco 3845 from cdw $9,662.99 Already funded 20) bandwidth manager $1500 -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.18/585 - Release Date: 12/13/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
OK...Lets look at this whole issue with one other twist. Let's say you need a large pipe to carry 100 Mb full duplex between 2 locations. You happen top have a $15K link sitting on the shelf that you could deploy. In doing so you may wipe out or interfere with the poor little WISP 2 miles away. What do you do??? Incur more expenses by buying another link that will not cause interference?? Do you pay the ILEC/CLEC?etc for a 100 Mb pipe??? Or do you put it up and just go with it??? I bet I know what most of you would do. Werger or not you will print it is another issue. But let's hear it. What would ya do?. -B- -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] guru opinions
Is this for something to play with or something to run a business with? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Carlos A. Garcia G [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 12:54 PM Subject: [WISPA] guru opinions Hi i have to ask again about a different setup i want to construct my radio not the hardware but software part, maybe using OpenBSD, Linux or FreeBSD or play with all of those in WARP or SOEKRIES but i need your opinion which one do you think its best, im wondering what to buy -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Your point is extremely valuble considering there are alot of people out there claiming to use point to point radios when in reality they are putting up a Multipiont ap and sm with the spray and pray mantality. ( extremly unengineered and poorly erenginered.) Some of those same people don't have any kind of safty program. Yet they want to hire someone else to take all the risk not pay them and have the audasity to point the finger at someone else when they have issues. Usually done because as you stated they only care about me and could really care less about the industry the customers or average Joe that is just trying to connect two offices that are miles or blocks apart that doesn't even fit on the competion platform. There are alot of start ups that do this. I can't tell you how many I have worked with. Some are members of this digest. Its the same old game of I'm and expert after only a yr or so in the industry. While thats great for an upstart that doesn't really have any competition it is a grave industry down fall. Unengineered or poorly engineered links end up eating alot of man hours troubleshooting. The spray and pray mantality has no place in our industry its for amatures. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:17 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options Considering my name comes up here several times I guess I should reply Tom DeReggi wrote: So there is no misunderstanding. My original comment was based on radios like early WMUX, that used the whole spectrum range. I have nothing against high capacity radios 100mbps FDX and Higher. I don't have anything against selecting higher capacity radios when needed, or chosing a radio that is less efficient because it is the only radio capable to meet the need, or required to get the job done. Where my beef is, is using an unefficient radio to accomplish something when an efficient radio is available to deliver equivellent speed (at a reasonable cost). Price is not everything. As WISPs we have a responsibility to do the best job we can. We are not obligated to sacrifice, but we are obligated to live by example and do the best we can, with consideration of others in the environment. If someone is doing that, I have no beef, regardless of the technology that is used. Unfortunately you are not going to get the same latency with a half duplex radio. So latency is one issue. Another is security. Using something that is proprietary also makes your network more secure. So those are 2 good issues to coinsider why to not use something like a Trango for large scale backhaul. My post was not about wether PTP or PTMP or any specific radio or deployment design was more efficient than another, and irrelevent because there is a requirement for all types that have issues more important than the efficiency. My point was what ever method was chosen, the provider should be aware to install the most efficient system possible that does not have a significant trade off, within reason. But what do you consider a significant tradeoff??? I'd always recommend a 100mbps FX radio that used 32 mhz of spectrum over one that used 100Mhz of spectrum. That's fine as long as it meets your business model. But is the 100 Mhz. is more economical and I am not using that spectrum, then why not use it?? There are so many people that just put up links, and then say if I don't have problem with interference thats all that matters. That is selfish and foolish. What should they do?? Assume that they are causing interference and what??? Shut down??? I think the best you can do is design a system within your knowledge base and budget. Its not true that interference is bi-directional. I know that... The high gain system is going to kill the lower gain system. Usually. C/I is obviously important. The responsible thing to do is to do a channel scan/survey to see the free-est channel, and then broadcast on that channel, with the intent to avoid interference to others. But you know that's not a given... It is clear as day what is and isn't good etiquette, and those that do not follow it, will ultimately loose in my prediction. In my earlier days, if I felt interference, I just switched to another channel to avoid the conflict, an advantage Trango gave me easilly. Exalt does that in 1 Mhz. channels. And you can switch polarities via software also. But we don't do it anymore, we hold our ground. If our link is up, and we see new interference on it, we go after the interferer until they move. What does go after mean I can tell you, if someone puts up a radio using all 100mhz of spectrum, and it happens to cross one of our cellsite or subscribers taking them down, the offendor's link will be taken down (made unusable) within
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Well, SOP in a case like this is to find a way to not cause catastrophic interference to anyone that was there first. Lets change your example a little bit. Lets make it a link that the E911 system uses. You gonna blow it offline just because you can? Should you do that? What would your reputation in the community be? Now lets go up another level. When you blow your competitor offline, what does that do the your industry's reputation? Did you really gain anything, in the long run, by doing so? Nope. You hurt him AND you shot yourself in the foot by causing more doubt about your technology choices. Then there's always that ol' fashioned notion of an eye for an eye, or do unto others. grin Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 1:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options OK...Lets look at this whole issue with one other twist. Let's say you need a large pipe to carry 100 Mb full duplex between 2 locations. You happen top have a $15K link sitting on the shelf that you could deploy. In doing so you may wipe out or interfere with the poor little WISP 2 miles away. What do you do??? Incur more expenses by buying another link that will not cause interference?? Do you pay the ILEC/CLEC?etc for a 100 Mb pipe??? Or do you put it up and just go with it??? I bet I know what most of you would do. Werger or not you will print it is another issue. But let's hear it. What would ya do?. -B- -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] guru opinions
2 play :) Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 escribió: Is this for something to play with or something to run a business with? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Carlos A. Garcia G [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 12:54 PM Subject: [WISPA] guru opinions Hi i have to ask again about a different setup i want to construct my radio not the hardware but software part, maybe using OpenBSD, Linux or FreeBSD or play with all of those in WARP or SOEKRIES but i need your opinion which one do you think its best, im wondering what to buy -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ISPCON Orlando May 23-25
I'm interested in learning more about that. But I want FCC and DOJ personnel there. Not someone that can read to me what I can read to myself. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Jeff Broadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 12:42 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] ISPCON Orlando May 23-25 Doug Hass is looking at building a session on CALEA. Would that be of interest? Doug has an extensive data background, is well published, and is currently in law school, so he would have a very cogent perspective on this matter. Jeff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter R. Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 3:29 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] ISPCON Orlando May 23-25 If you have ideas for sessions that you want to see at the next ISPCON, please let me know. Also, good time to book your room and your family trip for Orlando. Kayak.com has a great rate for the room at the Rosen at $150. Marriott condos are just $225. Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect Communicate 813.963.5884 http://www.marketingIDEAguy.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] guru opinions
In that case, try them all. Each has different pro and con. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Carlos A. Garcia G [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 3:33 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] guru opinions 2 play :) Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 escribió: Is this for something to play with or something to run a business with? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Carlos A. Garcia G [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 12:54 PM Subject: [WISPA] guru opinions Hi i have to ask again about a different setup i want to construct my radio not the hardware but software part, maybe using OpenBSD, Linux or FreeBSD or play with all of those in WARP or SOEKRIES but i need your opinion which one do you think its best, im wondering what to buy -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
You are still totally missing the point... In doing so you may wipe out or interfere with the poor little WISP 2 miles away. What do you do??? Thats not generally the outcome. If the little WISP down the street just goes away, there is no problem. But he doesn't because his whole livelihood is invested in his WISP business. What happens is after you wipe out the poor little WISP 2 miles away, the little WISP buys a big club (big radio) and wipes you out back, and smiles after he Wiped out the poor little you. This isn't a battle about 15K gear and cheap gear. Its been proven over and over again that cooperation is more effective than fighting a WAR. The BIG rich over confident provider no longer has the upper hand to bully the little poor WISP2, just because they are better funded. Its amazing what harm a $200 WARboard and 400mw card will do with a $180 3ft PAC Wireless dish. Not that I'm suggest attempt harm. I'm just saying WISP2 can now afford to grab just a big a club as you can. This is a REAL Risk, and equalizes the playing field. You play nice or everyone looses. I never said its not occasionally necessary to install over someone else. You do what you need to do, to get the link done. I simply suggested to avoid it when you can, unless their was just cause to do other wise. I just can't understand why participants on this thread have not grasped this simple principle. If you don't get it by now, I'm wasting my breath. I'm done with this one. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 4:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options OK...Lets look at this whole issue with one other twist. Let's say you need a large pipe to carry 100 Mb full duplex between 2 locations. You happen top have a $15K link sitting on the shelf that you could deploy. In doing so you may wipe out or interfere with the poor little WISP 2 miles away. What do you do??? Incur more expenses by buying another link that will not cause interference?? Do you pay the ILEC/CLEC?etc for a 100 Mb pipe??? Or do you put it up and just go with it??? I bet I know what most of you would do. Werger or not you will print it is another issue. But let's hear it. What would ya do?. -B- -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] guru opinions
Got the message Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 escribió: In that case, try them all. Each has different pro and con. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Carlos A. Garcia G [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 3:33 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] guru opinions 2 play :) Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 escribió: Is this for something to play with or something to run a business with? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Carlos A. Garcia G [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 12:54 PM Subject: [WISPA] guru opinions Hi i have to ask again about a different setup i want to construct my radio not the hardware but software part, maybe using OpenBSD, Linux or FreeBSD or play with all of those in WARP or SOEKRIES but i need your opinion which one do you think its best, im wondering what to buy -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ISPCON Orlando May 23-25
I'd take it one step further... Protocols to optimize QOS on Transit routing. Is BGP good enough anymore? What options are there to do the equivellent of OSLR for Transit and peering. For example, what merit is there to Internap's smart routing theories? What options exist for WISPs? There is a big gap now between routing decissions one may want to make for their internal on-net wireless transport network and there National transit and peering connections. WISPs are growing beyond the little provider feedingtheir networks with two local T1 providers. Do you make decisions to shorten on-net hops, or off-net hops to destinations? And is number of hops relevent anymore? I'd argue QOS, capacity, and dollar cost are so much more relevent now a days. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jeff Broadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 4:45 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] ISPCON Orlando May 23-25 From Doug: Another good topic for ISPCON would be an introduction to OLSR (Optimized Link State Routing). This routing protocol is beginning to replace OSPF on wireless ISP networks and other mobile and meshed networks. I've found that many providers don't know it even exists, much less how to use it. I'd be happy to speak on this as well. Doug -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter R. Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 3:58 PM To: WISPA General List Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WISPA] ISPCON Orlando May 23-25 With all the FUD surrounding CALEA that would be a great idea. He might want to team up with Kris Twomey, attorney of the ISP stars. - Peter @ RAD-INFO, Inc. Jeff Broadwick wrote: Doug Hass is looking at building a session on CALEA. Would that be of interest? Doug has an extensive data background, is well published, and is currently in law school, so he would have a very cogent perspective on this matter. Jeff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter R. Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 3:29 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] ISPCON Orlando May 23-25 If you have ideas for sessions that you want to see at the next ISPCON, please let me know. Also, good time to book your room and your family trip for Orlando. Kayak.com has a great rate for the room at the Rosen at $150. Marriott condos are just $225. Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect Communicate 813.963.5884 http://www.marketingIDEAguy.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ISPCON Orlando May 23-25
Tom DeReggi wrote: I'd take it one step further... Protocols to optimize QOS on Transit routing. Is BGP good enough anymore? What options are there to do the equivellent of OSLR for Transit and peering. For example, what merit is there to Internap's smart routing theories? We own a Internap FCP and it works quite well. See attached screen shot of its route optimization. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Oh Comon' Dude. A life safety system on unlicensed microwave??? What idiot would put the E911 system on Part 15 to begin with? That's just a lawsuit looking to happen. And as far as your second example...what happens when the other WISP is uneducated and builds a crappy system and his network is up and down and operates poorly?? What happens when the end user starts bitchin then??? What happens when Chavez stops selling us oil??? What happens when the mailman suddenly wants Saturdays off??? What happens.. If the competition gets blown off the air, I sell my service to the customer and work hard not to suffer the issues that he had with the prior provider. The customer in most cases goes with price and reliability, not type of service method. You know that :-) -B- Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Well, SOP in a case like this is to find a way to not cause catastrophic interference to anyone that was there first. Lets change your example a little bit. Lets make it a link that the E911 system uses. You gonna blow it offline just because you can? Should you do that? What would your reputation in the community be? Now lets go up another level. When you blow your competitor offline, what does that do the your industry's reputation? Did you really gain anything, in the long run, by doing so? Nope. You hurt him AND you shot yourself in the foot by causing more doubt about your technology choices. Then there's always that ol' fashioned notion of an eye for an eye, or do unto others. grin Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 1:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options OK...Lets look at this whole issue with one other twist. Let's say you need a large pipe to carry 100 Mb full duplex between 2 locations. You happen top have a $15K link sitting on the shelf that you could deploy. In doing so you may wipe out or interfere with the poor little WISP 2 miles away. What do you do??? Incur more expenses by buying another link that will not cause interference?? Do you pay the ILEC/CLEC?etc for a 100 Mb pipe??? Or do you put it up and just go with it??? I bet I know what most of you would do. Werger or not you will print it is another issue. But let's hear it. What would ya do?. -B- -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ISPCON Orlando May 23-25
I'll take OLSR, please Matt Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jeff Broadwick wrote: From Doug: Another good topic for ISPCON would be an introduction to OLSR (Optimized Link State Routing). This routing protocol is beginning to replace OSPF on wireless ISP networks and other mobile and meshed networks. I've found that many providers don't know it even exists, much less how to use it. I'd be happy to speak on this as well. Doug -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter R. Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 3:58 PM To: WISPA General List Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WISPA] ISPCON Orlando May 23-25 With all the FUD surrounding CALEA that would be a great idea. He might want to team up with Kris Twomey, attorney of the ISP stars. - Peter @ RAD-INFO, Inc. Jeff Broadwick wrote: Doug Hass is looking at building a session on CALEA. Would that be of interest? Doug has an extensive data background, is well published, and is currently in law school, so he would have a very cogent perspective on this matter. Jeff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter R. Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 3:29 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] ISPCON Orlando May 23-25 If you have ideas for sessions that you want to see at the next ISPCON, please let me know. Also, good time to book your room and your family trip for Orlando. Kayak.com has a great rate for the room at the Rosen at $150. Marriott condos are just $225. Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect Communicate 813.963.5884 http://www.marketingIDEAguy.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] ISPCON Orlando May 23-25
attachments don't seem to get through. Can you post a link? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 4:57 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] ISPCON Orlando May 23-25 Tom DeReggi wrote: I'd take it one step further... Protocols to optimize QOS on Transit routing. Is BGP good enough anymore? What options are there to do the equivellent of OSLR for Transit and peering. For example, what merit is there to Internap's smart routing theories? We own a Internap FCP and it works quite well. See attached screen shot of its route optimization. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Tom, You have been responding to this whole thread like I have been attacking your position. I'm not. My statement in a summary... Efficient use of the spectrum has multiple positions. Unfortunately others may not fit into my business plan. I am not saying blow them off the air and not work with them. I am saying that if someone comes along and can't make their new service work because I occupy the whole band then that sucks to be him. There are going to be situations where people are going to get interfered with. If there wasn't, the Commission would have licensed the band as you know. There will be survivors and there will be descendants. I like being a survivor -B- BTW: The WAR board is not type accepted. But you know that. :-P Tom DeReggi wrote: You are still totally missing the point... In doing so you may wipe out or interfere with the poor little WISP 2 miles away. What do you do??? Thats not generally the outcome. If the little WISP down the street just goes away, there is no problem. But he doesn't because his whole livelihood is invested in his WISP business. What happens is after you wipe out the poor little WISP 2 miles away, the little WISP buys a big club (big radio) and wipes you out back, and smiles after he Wiped out the poor little you. This isn't a battle about 15K gear and cheap gear. Its been proven over and over again that cooperation is more effective than fighting a WAR. The BIG rich over confident provider no longer has the upper hand to bully the little poor WISP2, just because they are better funded. Its amazing what harm a $200 WARboard and 400mw card will do with a $180 3ft PAC Wireless dish. Not that I'm suggest attempt harm. I'm just saying WISP2 can now afford to grab just a big a club as you can. This is a REAL Risk, and equalizes the playing field. You play nice or everyone looses. I never said its not occasionally necessary to install over someone else. You do what you need to do, to get the link done. I simply suggested to avoid it when you can, unless their was just cause to do other wise. I just can't understand why participants on this thread have not grasped this simple principle. If you don't get it by now, I'm wasting my breath. I'm done with this one. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 4:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options OK...Lets look at this whole issue with one other twist. Let's say you need a large pipe to carry 100 Mb full duplex between 2 locations. You happen top have a $15K link sitting on the shelf that you could deploy. In doing so you may wipe out or interfere with the poor little WISP 2 miles away. What do you do??? Incur more expenses by buying another link that will not cause interference?? Do you pay the ILEC/CLEC?etc for a 100 Mb pipe??? Or do you put it up and just go with it??? I bet I know what most of you would do. Werger or not you will print it is another issue. But let's hear it. What would ya do?. -B- -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ISPCON Orlando May 23-25
CHUCK PROFITO wrote: attachments don't seem to get through. Can you post a link? http://www.oneringnetworks.com/fcp.jpg -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
The right thing to do is to coordinate the install with the wisp so you can monitor the exsisting link while installing the new and have plan B ready to go if there is a conflict. No harm no foul. That can be a challenge if you don't know the wisp is even there. I have done this repeatedly with Government agencies trying to use unlicensed gear in an ever growing wisp markets. For you non believers a spectrum scan gives you great insite into what is out there. So you can plan ( engineer ) around it. If done properly, 360* on a verticle, horizontal, and diagnal polarity. You get great results. You may find complete spectrum saturation...you may find nothing..What ever you do don't do anything the right way and don't invest any money to do it right either. What do most do. Well I don't think I need to cover that, your point is well made. In south America several yrs ago it was called the AMP WARs which some members of this digest still do today. Thats the kind of unprofessionalism I am talking about. Thats also why it confuses me that so call professionals will use the cheapest spectrum hogs on the market and then brag about how big thier customer base is just to save a dollar and then bitch when they have issues with performance because they short cut and didn't bother with doing the home work. Youv'e gotta love Fluff. CHEAPER doesn't mean BETTER I don't care how well it suites your pocket book. If you can't afford to do it right then don't do it. If that means you need to hire someone to figure it out for you then hire them, but make damn sure you pay them if you want thier help in the future. If your not willing to invest in yourself then what kind of msg are you sending to your customers.Just keep sending me y our check.. I'll have a tech look into first thing tomorrow. Another truck roll and more unessesary time and money spent. I bet with all the truck rolls, time and money spent on troubleshooting you could have bought a magic carpet to deliver the customers bandwidth personaly. Point being with all the money wasted you could have bought the better gear, had a better network, do I dare say, a reliable network. It all adds up to dollars and sense. Unfortunatly the guy with the dollars seems to be the guy missing the sense. Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 7:38 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options You are still totally missing the point... In doing so you may wipe out or interfere with the poor little WISP 2 miles away. What do you do??? Thats not generally the outcome. If the little WISP down the street just goes away, there is no problem. But he doesn't because his whole livelihood is invested in his WISP business. What happens is after you wipe out the poor little WISP 2 miles away, the little WISP buys a big club (big radio) and wipes you out back, and smiles after he Wiped out the poor little you. This isn't a battle about 15K gear and cheap gear. Its been proven over and over again that cooperation is more effective than fighting a WAR. The BIG rich over confident provider no longer has the upper hand to bully the little poor WISP2, just because they are better funded. Its amazing what harm a $200 WARboard and 400mw card will do with a $180 3ft PAC Wireless dish. Not that I'm suggest attempt harm. I'm just saying WISP2 can now afford to grab just a big a club as you can. This is a REAL Risk, and equalizes the playing field. You play nice or everyone looses. I never said its not occasionally necessary to install over someone else. You do what you need to do, to get the link done. I simply suggested to avoid it when you can, unless their was just cause to do other wise. I just can't understand why participants on this thread have not grasped this simple principle. If you don't get it by now, I'm wasting my breath. I'm done with this one. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 4:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options OK...Lets look at this whole issue with one other twist. Let's say you need a large pipe to carry 100 Mb full duplex between 2 locations. You happen top have a $15K link sitting on the shelf that you could deploy. In doing so you may wipe out or interfere with the poor little WISP 2 miles away. What do you do??? Incur more expenses by buying another link that will not cause interference?? Do you pay the ILEC/CLEC?etc for a 100 Mb pipe??? Or do you put it up and just go with it??? I bet I know what most of you would do. Werger or not you will print it is another issue. But let's hear it. What would ya do?. -B- -- Bob Moldashel
[WISPA] There is so much more we can do to make money with our customers
Here's a perfect example of the extra stuff that makes networking exciting. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/brazil_odd_camera_dc -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
I'll accept that reply, without disagreeance. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 8:28 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options Tom, You have been responding to this whole thread like I have been attacking your position. I'm not. My statement in a summary... Efficient use of the spectrum has multiple positions. Unfortunately others may not fit into my business plan. I am not saying blow them off the air and not work with them. I am saying that if someone comes along and can't make their new service work because I occupy the whole band then that sucks to be him. There are going to be situations where people are going to get interfered with. If there wasn't, the Commission would have licensed the band as you know. There will be survivors and there will be descendants. I like being a survivor -B- BTW: The WAR board is not type accepted. But you know that. :-P Tom DeReggi wrote: You are still totally missing the point... In doing so you may wipe out or interfere with the poor little WISP 2 miles away. What do you do??? Thats not generally the outcome. If the little WISP down the street just goes away, there is no problem. But he doesn't because his whole livelihood is invested in his WISP business. What happens is after you wipe out the poor little WISP 2 miles away, the little WISP buys a big club (big radio) and wipes you out back, and smiles after he Wiped out the poor little you. This isn't a battle about 15K gear and cheap gear. Its been proven over and over again that cooperation is more effective than fighting a WAR. The BIG rich over confident provider no longer has the upper hand to bully the little poor WISP2, just because they are better funded. Its amazing what harm a $200 WARboard and 400mw card will do with a $180 3ft PAC Wireless dish. Not that I'm suggest attempt harm. I'm just saying WISP2 can now afford to grab just a big a club as you can. This is a REAL Risk, and equalizes the playing field. You play nice or everyone looses. I never said its not occasionally necessary to install over someone else. You do what you need to do, to get the link done. I simply suggested to avoid it when you can, unless their was just cause to do other wise. I just can't understand why participants on this thread have not grasped this simple principle. If you don't get it by now, I'm wasting my breath. I'm done with this one. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 4:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options OK...Lets look at this whole issue with one other twist. Let's say you need a large pipe to carry 100 Mb full duplex between 2 locations. You happen top have a $15K link sitting on the shelf that you could deploy. In doing so you may wipe out or interfere with the poor little WISP 2 miles away. What do you do??? Incur more expenses by buying another link that will not cause interference?? Do you pay the ILEC/CLEC?etc for a 100 Mb pipe??? Or do you put it up and just go with it??? I bet I know what most of you would do. Werger or not you will print it is another issue. But let's hear it. What would ya do?. -B- -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ISPCON Orlando May 23-25
What they do looks pretty cool. We currently got a 30 mbps wireless link from our master data center to an Internap datacenter building, about 1/4 mile away. We were thinking of getting a second transit from them, and upgrading the link speed to their building. At that distance even 60Ghz could work. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 7:57 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] ISPCON Orlando May 23-25 Tom DeReggi wrote: I'd take it one step further... Protocols to optimize QOS on Transit routing. Is BGP good enough anymore? What options are there to do the equivellent of OSLR for Transit and peering. For example, what merit is there to Internap's smart routing theories? We own a Internap FCP and it works quite well. See attached screen shot of its route optimization. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Mikrotik / SR9 / Incorrect Noise Floor
I've been seeing something strange in a pop I'm changing over from Trango 900 to Tik and SR9. The Trango AP reports the noise floor ( on all 4 channels ) to be no worse than -88 (for vpol, that's awesome!) I can make a link from 2 miles out with the trango, no problem. I remember surveying with a canopy 900 AP as well, and seeing about the same - -86 to -90. When I switch radios, with same antennas (the trango cpe in that case was using external antenna), I get no link, but an observed signal strength at the CPE side of -75 (which the trango CPE said too.) At the AP side, the Mikrotik box (version 2.9.38) reports a noise floor when using the monitor app, of -38!! This has GOT to be a bug. Has anyone else here seen this ? The problem here, is that these buggy numbers throw off the SNR ratio, and no connection from CPE- AP can be made. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] more ip tracking upgrades
Brandon has just made some changes on our tracking system. The biggest one is that we can now see top users per day. This will allow us to follow more of what's going on at night. Like yesterday, someone sent 3 gigs up to the net. They've got something on their machine that they are really not gonna want. Trying to pick that one customer out of all of the traffic that normally goes on was a real pain. With the new stuff it was a cake walk. radius.odessaoffice.com/iptrack laters, marlon -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
